Thanks your input.
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/news_lite.php?id=319027
1. 2/3 is for voting in Parliament on Federal Constitution. For Malaysia to reform properly, the reform of Federal Cinstitution is a basic step and so are others Laws (at 1/2 majority?)to open upon transparency, accountability, Human Rights and monitoring, etc for the reform of administration. Do we find 2/3 majority in other developed couintries?
2. At State level, it is 1/2 even for State Constitution.
3. When Ruling Party for Federal Government required 1/2 as majority. Why should it then requires 2/3 to make or amend Constitution which is also for specifying People’s Rights?

Thanks your illustration with the Canadian example.
1. Definition of Majority varies in different procedures.
a) Majority to give the status of a Ruling party does not necessary mean they have to be bigger than a Majority for voting. As in the case of the Federal Government where the Majority for Voting is 2/3 and they are not. By saying so, the FROGGING,after an election, CANNOT change the Status of a Ruling party.
2. The request for dissolve of Assembly lies with the Ruling party. So, once the Ruling party is elected, via GE, the frogging SHOULD NOT provide the Opposition the Rights to ask Sultan to dissolve the Assembly.
3. As mentioned last, Loosing of majority vote does not automatically means the Ruling Party has to step down. But, as explained earlier, it will mean that the Ruling Government can easily be crippled by the Opposition, IF the Assemblyman or MP are Party orientated that more independent towards be best for their District or the country.The \No confidence\ vote is in fact \a test\ to see if similar Majority will also came up during a voting. Therefore, even when Majority of Party arrives, say by \frogging\, a cast of no confidence vote is still necessary. After that, the Ruling Party should really see if they should dissolve the Assembly to seek the \Opinion\ of the Voters via a GE.
4. Getting Majority by coalition of Parties is general in many countries, therefore it arrived to BN and PKR as of today.

In my opinion, the setting of 2/3 as majority in the Federal Government is not a FAIR practice!! Especially when MP are party orientated than performing their Duties – the BASIS problem with Malaysian Politicians and ….!!

In such circumstances (even after the 4 by elections results that give BN majority in legislative assembly) can PR MB go to to Sultan and request for dissolution of legislative assembly in hope that a state wide elections PR can return with a wider majority by which it is argued that the Sultan also cannot refuse to dissolve the Assembly??

If one follows convention the privilege to precipitate fresh elections seems to be vested in incumbent, even one defeated by no confidence vote.

In Canada (recently in 2006) Opposition (the Conservatives supported by the other two opposition parties -the NDP and Bloc Québécois – ) introduced and won a motion of non confidence against the Liberal Paul Marti’sn government. The motion was passed on November 28 by a count of 171–133, defeating the government, after which the Governor General issued the election writs for a general federal election to be held on January 23, 2006 after 56 day campaigning. In the end, the Conservatives won a plurality of support and seats, finishing 31 seats short of a majority but could form govt due to other parties support. Liberal Paul Martin conceded defeat.

Thanks.

1. What you said –

“……People ignore that the power of nominating a MB come only from a Ruling party ELECTED BY VOTERS. (In this case has to be PR Nizar’s Govt) …. BN in the mean time has no status to nominate. And, so HRH is not being the position to consent or reject any nomination from BN. So….any nomination from is void….”

makes sense in that it is consistent with principle of supremacy of voters’ mandate.

2. What I am not convinced is that constitutional Ruler has a right to reject an incumbent MB’s request for dissolution of Assembly when that MB feels that he lost command of majority or if a vote of no confidence has already been passed. I believe incumbent having lost majority in assembly is constitutionally entitled to only 2 options – resign or request a dissolution and face a state wide general elections. When incumbent MB exercises 2nd option, Ruler cannot deny him that option but MUST dissolve Parliament (though it is HRH’s right to appoint Zambry as head of care taker government to run affairs until the state wide elections to canvass afresh rakyat’s mandate).

3. I am fortified in that view if what you said in 1. holds correct : that there is NO WAY the opposition side (ie BN in Perak Assembly) [with majority of assemblymen due to frogging BUT in absence of by- elections of frogs without that evidence of these majority of its assemblymen representing majority of people mandate] can nominate an MB for HRH to approve. If the Opposition claiming majority of asdsemblymen due to crossovers cannot nominate, HRH cannot appoint MB, then incumbent request for dissolution of assembly for fresh elections must be entertained!

4. One of thcommonwealth precedentsfor this is in Australia – Labor Party’s Gough Whitlam lost majority at Senate level in 1975, Malcom Fraser (from opposition bench) was immediately sworn in as caretaker (as distinct from permanent PM on condition that he give the Governor-General immediate advice to dissolve both Houses …

5. This means BN has still a way out by saying Zambry is a caretaker MB to administer after dissolution until Perak state wide election. BN/Najib may do it only if, quid pro quo, BN could extract some counter concessions from PR from other arenas of political battle or at the very least, for face saving purposes, the BN be “seen” to seize initiative of proposing a way out of the constitutional impasse in accord with rakyat’s wishes.

In my personal opinion,
1. A Caretaker has to be formed before dissolving the Assembly. So, I believe the MB should not resign before a Caretaker being formed. And, I believe the Caretaker has a limit validity. Therefore, any dispute during the GE, the judiciary system has to rush to settle. Such as on verification of the voting, etc.. Therefore, the preparation of the GE is also a key factor to dissolve the Assembly. So, for last GE, PM has the choice of fixing the date!!
2. If PM do not have to resign before the outcome of the Federal GE, I believe same applies to MB until the outcome of the State GE. A Government needs an authorized signatory for the daily running. I assume this is the basic. Therefore, Nizar did not resign (isn’t it?) but asking HRH for the permission to dissolve the Assembly. So, was Nizar allowed or advised to form the Caretaker and does he considered if a GE can be properly done within the validity of a Caretaker should be he main concern before asking for the dissolve of the Assembly. I believe HRH knows well that the Government cannot go with a MB during any period.
3. I believe HRH has the Rights to reject the dissolve of the Assembly. The question will be if HRH wants a cripple Government if the “majority” is not there. Or, he believe it is being “premature” such as a Caretaker not being formed or a proper election is not readily prepared.
4. The funny thing (sorry I have to say so) are
a) People as well as the Assembly are misled by the “frogging” that BN got the “majority” as such no “vote of no confidence” is necessary to vote out the existing Government (the Party).
b) People ignored that the power of nominating a MB come only from a Ruling party elected by Voters. So, BN in the mean time has no status to nominated. And, so HRH is not be in the position to consent or reject any nomination from BN.
5. So,
a) nomination from BN void
b) The consent to “appoint” a new MB by HRH void!!
c) PKR is still the legal Ruling Party and so is Nizar the legal MB.

IF THE JUDICIARY SYSTEM WORKS, INCLUDING IF MEMBERS OF THE BAR REALLY CARES (AS IN MOST COUNTRIES), THIS TYPE OF EXPLANATION OR UNDERSTANDING SHOULD ALREADY BE ON MOST OF THE NEWSPAPER OR MEDIA (IF THEY ARE INDEPENDENT!!)

The situation is similar to what happened in a Condo in Wangsa Baiduri where the Council members were elected with voting by non-registered proprietors with non-registered proprietors being elected during the First AGM. By law, the consecutive AGM are void.

BUT, THIS IS MALAYSIA!! SO, EVEN A STATE ASSEMBLY IS IN SUCH A MESS!!

Hope Nizar and PKR can work into this direction! But, where can we find FAIR & INDEPENDENCE JUDGES??

I hope I have answered your Questions!

This is where you go on a frolic of your own and assumes what the constitution does not provide for. The constitution clearly states that the MB does not hold office at the sultan’s pleasure; in other words the sultan has no power to dismiss the MB. This cannot be sidestepped by appointing a second MB when the MB still legally hold office or that would make an ass of the constitution.

You seem to be confused with the power to appoint an MB and the right to exercise that power. The two are not synonymous. Clearly the right to exercise the power to appoint an MB only applies if the MB post is vacant. If common sense cannot be used on such a basic point, then we end up like a dog chasing its tail like your arguments.

1. Political System – Malaysia is a Constitution Monarchy system where the Ruling Party is elected by GE for Federal or State Level. Under the constitution, the head of Federal and States is the PM and CM respectively. The Sultan HRH is to consent or reject any nomination from the Ruling Party and finally \appoint\.
2. Therefore, any nomination of PM or CM has to come from the Ruling party elected by GE.
3. The Ruling party can always be challenged by a vote of Confidence to verify if they got the \majority\ support from the MP or Assembly persons.
4. Loosing the \majority\ in the Parliament or State Assembly would mean the \Ruling\ party can easily be crippled when come to voting of laws or any motions. Therefore, the best is to get a new election to seek new \decision\ from the voters on who should run the Government.
5. During such transition period before the next GE, the Ruling party is still responsible to run the Government and a Caretaker Government must be there before the next GE. (Reference http://malaysianjudges.blogspot.com/2009/02/does-sultan-azlan-shah-have-power-to.html) This a must procedures before the Parliament or Assembly be dissolved. I believe this is why the MB can take time to hand in his resignation and asked for the dissolve of the Legislative Assembly. And, also why HRH could reject the dissolve of the Assembly. The consequence of the latter will keep the Ruling party in power.

6. Once again, I hope someone can straighten up the basic concept and procedures relating the GE-Appointment of MB-the Power of HRH. Any law or constitution should be read for the execution of such concept and procedures with no violation of the principle! Along such \common sense\ can be easily applied.

7. FROM THE ABOVE, BN cannot nominate anyone unless they are elected as the Ruling Party. Until then, HRH is in no position to consent or reject a Nominee from BN ending with an \Appointment\ to a \New\ MB.

8. PKR had not been proven of loss of \majority\ and had not taken the procedure to resign. So their status of being a Ruling party remains, especially when HRH had rejected the dissolve of the Assembly.

However no one is saying this. High Court Judgee/NH Chan are talking of who commands majority of legislative assembly to be eligible for MB post – and that when it comes to appointment of MB, it has to be Ruler’s judgment (prerogative), but when it comes to dismissal of that position it has to be by majority vote of Legislative Assembly!

Court of Appeal judge Datuk Md Raus Sharif already said there was no clear provision in the state Constitution that a vote of no confidence against Nizar must be taken in the assembly to determine the loss of majority!

So on wjhat basis one says Court of Appeal is wrong?

Well one can argue MB can only be dismissed – by the people. It is the mandate thing.

If so, there is another problem, one wonders why first appointment of MB is based on royal prerogative and not dictates of people’s mandate: why people mandate is important at end but not beginning of MB appointment?

Even if so (people’s mandate is important at tail end of appointment) then dismissal cannot be determined by majority vote of assemblymen which has swung because of kataks – it has to be deterimined by dissolution of assembly and fresh state elections. If so one has also to maintain MB has right to dissolve legislative assembly which cannot be denied by Ruler, something that High Court judge N H Chan said otherwise….

Just like KennyGan’s commonsensical argument is that it is ‘implied’ that incumbent MB’s post must first be vacant before next MB is considered for appointment by Ruler.

It can however be replied by Zambry that there is no need for dismissal , that it is equally “implied” that HRH’s exercise of royal prerogative to appoint second MB (Zambry) automatically renders the existing MB post of Nizar vacant and supersedes it by Zambry’s new appointment.

So where does all this “implying” of what is commonsensical get us?

The problem with common sense is firstly it is not that common and secondly the difficulty in getting consensus on which sense is ‘common’.

The problem with “implying” is that each side will imply to written text of Perak constitution what to it is common sense (read advantageous to its cause) but to the other is nonsense.

Where is this stated in Perak State Constitution?

KennyGan would say its common sense – and it is so – that if there is an incumbent MB, obviously the sultan cannot appoint another MB until the post is vacant by resignation or removal by the Assembly…

However one can’t nail the problem (as what High Court judge tries to do) by making 2 parallel propositions that when strictly applied in juxtaposition lead to absurd result (2 MBs) unless one reads further into them and implies what is commonsensical….that if an incumbent MB is not legally/properly removed by vote of no confidence how could the next question of new MB appointed by Ruler’s judgment arise?

But thats the point, since when is implying common sense to what is not express being fashionable?

In the Court of Appeal, they already said “there is no mandatory or express requirement in the Perak Constitution for a vote of no confidence to be taken in the legislative assembly” – so what is not stated there means it is not there, it cannot be implied….

Talking about implying, there’s alot one can imply in absence of express wordings.

Eg High court interprets that it is implied Ruler can refuse incumbent MB’s request for dissolution of state assembly; I am entitled to imply that Ruler cannot.

Court of Appeal reads constitution as implying Ruler can use personal discretion to appoint MB, and the other side says no, one cannot because there is need for vote of no confidence. (Either way it is not expressly stated in Perak constitution).

When it comes to implying everyone has his own brand of what is commonsensical to be implied.

This is a fatal concession by High Court Judge whom regretably N H Chan also agrees….

This does not help Pakatan Rakyat’s Cause.

There is no point in saying Ruler cannot appoint new MB (Zambry) and at same time concedes that existing MB (Nizar) cannot as of right request and obtain from Ruler a dissolution of the Perak State Legislative Assembly to pave the way for fresh mandate of all Perakians.

If the existing MB cannot re-test mandate of people by requesting for dissolution of legislative assembly that Ruler cannot refuse – and here High Court judge Abdul Aziz takes position that the Ruler can refuse – it means all the other side (BN) has to do is to keep pressure up by inducing/buying cross overs in all the states controlled by PR and once the numbers on BN side due to crossovers become majority :-

1. BN can move vote of no confidence on existing PR MB in any PR controlled state which, with help of kataks will carry; and

2. at same time existing PR MB has no right to avert a threatening scenario in 1. by calling for dissolution of legislative assembly for re-testing the people/voters fresh mandate (since Ruler could have personal prerogative to say “no” to MB’s request for dissolution).

In a constitutional monarchy, the better view is that when an MB make a request for dissolution of state assembly, the Ruler cannot say “no”.

Imagine at federal/parliamentary level the PM exercises his prerogative to dissolve parliament for fresh elections (before 5 year term up) and Yang Pertuan Agong (according to Abdul Aziz J’s reasoning) can say “no”!

For the High Court to concede that Ruler could refuse existing MB’s request for dissolution of legislative assembly in scenario of crossovers of PR assemblymen to BN is to spell the end of PR’s control in all PR constrolled legislative assemblies if BN with greater financial resources embark on relentless inducement of PR assemblymen to crossover……

I am surprised that senior judge like NH Chan can agree to such a major concession by High Court Judge, Abdul Aziz J contrary to the concept of supremacy of people’s mandate.

Concept of supremacy of people’s mandate means incumbent can always go back to people for mandate without being thwarted. This is the consistent stand of YB Lim Kit Siang – return to Perakians for mandate. This means an existing MB like Nizar (or PM at parliamentary level) always have to right to call on this mandate by procuring dissolution of legislative assembly and state wide elections – of which no Ruler under Constitutional Monarchy system (as opposed to absolute Monarchy) could justifiably refuse when such a request is made!

According to High court judge/NH Chan, yes Ruler could refuse…

Like that, how to resolve every case of impasse precipitated by crossovers contrary to people’s democratic will?

It is a legal speak and not in accord with commonsense. It is not in accord with commonsense because applying that reasoning would lead logically to an absurd result.

To illustrate:

If what Abdul Aziz J ruled – whom NH Chan agrees – is true, it would simply imply :

1. In absence of vote of no confidence in legislative assembly, the Sultan/Ruler has no basis – HRH cannot use his personal judgment here – to dismiss Nizar as current Menteri Besar; BUT……

2. based on personal judgment, HRH could use his personal judgment to appoint Zambry as MB…

which could lead to the absurd result of Perak having two Menteri Besar (since Nizar was unconstitutionally dismissed and Zambry was constitutionally appointed by Ruler/Sultan at the same time)! :)

I think he must. 84% figure means he is widely supported. I can tell you the 13GE won’t be less than that figure HE HE HE

“Should Nizar appeal the Court of Appeal decision that declared Zambry the Perak mentri besar?”

Guess what – 84% polled “Yes He Should”!

If only we could translate this 84% figure into votes in the next GE…

“u hurt my feeling i m gonna go for hunger strike …i can last for 7 days without food and ice tea …..NIzar and gang still on hunger strike or not…”

If you had not been so foolish to post nonsense-s, we wouldn’t even have the arrows on you. You should have consider the outcome of your thinking resulted this earlier. I suggest you better be Fasting to purge your body, soul and spirit from evil thoughts against Rakyat. Whether Nizar and the rest of hunger strike supporters are still in it or not, there’s no dispute nor question. They are the heroes and heroins of Democracy! They do it for your sakes too even though you’re against them! Feel that passion, that love shown, and be appreciable rather than crying like a baby!