And she had the guts to say that she is a “Pro-BN independent statesassembly person”! So which constituency is she representing? Or is she claiming that she is a pro-BN independent statesassembly person representing NO ONE!

When will Malaysia be at peace where the Rakyat will not think about race politics and the politicians from both sides are fighting for the people’s best interest?

If Anwar succeeded in getting the 41 MPs to be liberalized, and AAB did not wish to resign, then the King would have dissolved Parliament and the people would have a chance to decide once again whether the 41 MPs were those they want represented again.

The people of Perak asked for this outcome. MB Nizar asked the Sultan to dissolve the State assembly. Nevertheless the state assembly could have awaited the outcome of by-election to be held on the three constituencies of which the ADUNs had submitted letter of resignations and the Speaker had accepted them and made request for by-election to be held. Under normal circumstances when the Election Commission is neutral to political parties and it carries out its functions as envisaged by the constitution, it would accept the request made by the Speaker of the State Assembly, without question. The Sultan of Perak made by-elections disadvantage to BN and hence the election Commission followed through with its overzealous enthusiasm to ensure BN rule in Perak is complete and absolute.

The issue is not whether MPs and ADUNs should practice their right of free association. It is the failure of the institutions in the county to carry out the duties entrusted to the personnel employed in these institutions. We have firstly the Election Commission Chief who usurped the power to decide vacancy, which was supported by the judge in the court of appeal who pretended not to understand English. We have the High court judge who knew that the judgment by Justice Abdul Aziz was grounded in accordance to precedent which had not been challenged for 43 years and yet he granted a stay within 24 hours of the judgment and 20 minutes of Court proceedings. We have three judges of the Court of Appeal who had the benefit to read explanation by NH Chan’s on why the judgment of Justice Abdul Aziz was correct and yet they ruled with full knowledge that they were infringing the codes of conduct for judges, for malfeasance. Now, the three judges of Court of Appeal are seen either as novice in law or they had a price for making judgment-to-order.

The longer Najib refuses to call it quit on power grab in Perak, the more the personnel of government institutions are coming out to convince the world that the country is in a state of anarchy held together through police state. No number of telephone calls from Obama would make him acceptable to the democratic world.

Since Saiful approached the right authority for scholarship, and produced the proof of his eligibility for the award, the voice against Anwar gets louder. People have the knack to back winner, and declaring so as if they might miss out on opportunity for reward in that regards.

As for Mr. A I hope he did not plan the assault with someone else … if not then its a conspiracy. Hahahahaaa

Using the analogy of A expressing an intention to do an unlawful act of assaulting Z but somehow fails to execute the act of assaulting Z, however Z on hearing this, does the same number on A by successfully assaulting A.

In such a case who has committed the unlawful act? It has to be Z. Yes A evinces an intention to do the same but he commits no unlawful act because he has failed to execute it.

Does the fact that A evinces an intention to assault but never carried it out exonerate or exculpate Z when Z actually carried out the wrongful assault on A? This cannot be. We still adjudge Z is wrong for committing the unlawful act of assault on A.

Yes I agree it it would be. And rightly condemned too if it happened.

Which is why Anwar/PR has undoubtedly lost the high moral ground to criticise and condemn Zambry/BN for soliciting the crossovers to accomplish the “coup de grace” in Perak Assembly. As they say what is sauce for goose is sauce for gander and one forfeits the moral right to condemn the action of the opponent that does the same thing as what one wanted to do, albeit failed to do.

However in this particular thread we are not discussing this particular moral issue.

We are looking at the legality and constitutionality of BN’s takeover by such methods – and whether it is legally and constitutionally right or wrong.

If we have reasons to justify that it is legally and constitutionally right or wrong, then we say and conclude so.

It has nothing to do with the other moral issue whether Anwar/PR has the moral right to criticise/condemn Zambry/BN for doing exactly (successfully) what Anwar declared an intention to do but (unsuccessfully) failed to do.

Anwar had an intention to soliciit 41 defections and usurp Federal power but he failed to execute it : hence has not committed a wrong of unconstitutional usurpation of power. (Like I can express an intention to kill someone but if I did not do it I have committed no crime of murder no matter how immoral my intention).

Though he had not the moral basis to criticise BN for doing the same thing at state level in Perak, the fact that BN had actually executed it would not absolve BN from blame of perpetrating a legal and constitutional wrong.

And it is this second issue of the legal and constitutional wrong done by BN in Perak that is raised by NH Chan which has been extensively discussed by readers/commentators here.

This is separate from first issue of moral tit for tat that is conceded.

It is true the statement if “you wish to court BN ADUNs then face the consequences when yours are courted” but that however does not make BN’s courting of PR’s aduns legal and constitutionally right or provide it the legal and constitutional justification to take over Perak Assembly the way BN did.

That’s the way I see it. :)

Looks like we bend the law for what we think is right and that is what BN does too. They think its right to ‘pinjam’ some of the Rakyat’s duit because they are working so so hard and its necessary to feed all their friends.

We need to do what is right without compromise. Many famous dictators in history started out that way too, bend a bit a bit … at the end its like Pol Pot, Noriega, Idi Amin etc.

If PIRATES having jumpong frogs to uphold injustice, inequlity and undemocracy to Malaysians, BIG BIG PROBLEM.

So you see the difference.

What I meant about bad taste is that if you wish to court BN ADUNs then face the consequences when yours are courted. The BN crossover was a set up, that was well played by Najib, that allowed him to then pull the other 3 which was already ready to do so but the 1st crossover gave him the opportunity and then to come back into BN allows an even better PR (public relations) coup.

Again, if we follow your reasoning, then IF Anwar was successful in pulling over 41 MPs last year that would have been a clear breach of the people’s mandate as to who should govern Malaysia. Is that not so? But Anwar did not care, he was so happy to say he had the support and that he will go see the Agong about it.

Loh … what I said about PR’s candidates is a fact, that does not mean what BN did was right and should be allowed. Tunku was wise in that instance not to appeal as that would cause an imbalance in the whole system. He rather let it slide and wait for the next round.

Bottom line is we all know that BN mati-mati also want to win la. That is a fact we are not disputing. They do not care if its done properly or fairly or whatever you want to call it. They just want it. I believe I made that clear. Still it does not absolve the fact that the 3 candidates fielded are full or cr@p.

Expect a scholarship and a state award for words said well.

If the Election Commission did not usurp the power, and conducted by-elections for the constituencies of the three ADUNs whose resignations were accepted by the Speaker, the people of Perak and the whole country would abide by the outcome.

The Governor of Sarawak in 1966 did exactly the same thing as the Perak Sultan. He met with the ADUNs who wanted the CM Stephen kalong Ningkam out, and he sacked the chief Minister. The High court ruled that the Governor was wrong and the CM was reinstated. Tunku did not proceed to get the stay of execution like Najib.

Justice Abdul Aziz ruled in accordance with the same principle. Now the three Justice of the Court of Appeal choose to add words that were not written in the state constitution. The judges might just add that appointed governor unlike the hereditary rulers has no permanent position, and hence did not have the special privilege conferred by Malay dominance. They could rule further that since the wishes of the Ruler are the command of the rakyat, like UMNO leaders claimed that it was treason not to follow Rulers’ wishes, Ruler has additional power over appointed Governor.

How shameful.

I do not know whether they understand shameful.

I don’t think its best taste for these reasons:

In accordance with best practices/convention of parliamentary democracy, the coalition that won most seats representing voice of majority of voters in state assembly will form the state government. That was done in Perak’s case. PR formed the state government. At legislative assembly level PR assemblymen were majority supposedly representing majority voters.

However here majority in assembly has subsequently changed from PR to BN due to defections.

Here losing majority on Nizar’s part in Perak state assembly is not synonymous with losing majority of people/Perakians’ support.

This is because the loss of majority was due to 3 PR aduns frogging over to BN side when they originally won their seats under PR’s ticket. There were by elections to legitimize their defections and continuance as assemblymen.

So in accordance with best practices/convention of parliamentary democracy there should be, in the face of such uncertainty caused by the defections, a statewide election in Perak to re-determine who -PR or BN- commands the mandate.

This position is consistent with what happened in Kelantan in 1977 ( cited by constitutional lecturer Kevin Y L Tan ) “when its MB, Datuk Mohamed Nasir refused to resign even though he had lost a vote of confidence motion in the Kelantan LA, been sacked by his own party, and had his request for dissolution of the LA refused by the Sultan of Kelantan. The impasse led to the declaration of a state of emergency by the Federal Government that lasted three months, after which the Legislative assembly was dissolved for fresh elections.”

In Kelantan it was a worser situation for MB, Datuk Mohamed Nasir than Perak MB Nizar. Nasir suffered a vote of no confidence, where Nizar did not, though he might face the prospect of it in due course. Even then fresh elections called in Nasir’s case, which I argue more so, in Nizar’s case, when he did not suffer a vote of confidence being passed unlike his kelantan counterpart.

Why? Because best practices dictate people’s will should prevail. Where people’s majority will was originally reflected in legislative assembly by majority of their candidates being voted in as aduns, when this situation – ie majority of numbers in stae assembly – subsequently changes in manner not necessarily reflecting correspondent changes in majority voters’ will because these defections are not legitimised by by election – then majority in numbers in state assembly no more reflects majority support of the people and therefore a fresh stae wide election has to be called.

That is why (in my personal opinion) the expression in article 16(6) – “unless at his request His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council” must be read as intending to confer to incumbent MB only 2 options when majority in legislative assembly is lost : either resign or request for dissolution of Legislative Assembly that His Royal Highness must, barring the most extenuating circumstances, must accede to in context of constitutional monarchy/parliamentary democracy as opposed to absolute monarchy.

2. The “Frogging” does not change a Ruling Party as demonostrated by the Perak case. Otherwise, BN/Sultan would not use the excuse of loss of majority.

3. Article 16 (6) should indicate that “Following a vote of no-confidence, either the Ruler dissolve the LA or the CM should hand in the resignation of the Executive Council to prepare for a new election.

4. Article 18. His Royal Highness to act on advice (of the Executive Council)
This should be interpreted that the Ruler does not rule by Absolute Discretion.

5. I believe the key point should fall on the nomination and sacking of CM has to come from a Ruling Party or his coalition. The later can only be determined by election. So, even the Sultan has the power of sacking the CM, a new election still have to be conducted after sacking of CM.

frankyapp … I know where you are coming from BUT PR made tons of promises and many are questioning it now. PR said, we are here to give you what BN did not give, we are here to be honest and will not work by way of racial politics, we are here as one and will work together despite our political differences. They are no where … even Sin Chew has articles questioning them … one paper that has supported PR.