Usurper Perak MB convening Assembly on 7th May – Federal Court decision against Perak Speaker defective, null and void

Following the Federal Court decision yesterday that the Perak State Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar does not have the power to suspend the usurper Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir and his six state executive council members from attending the assembly, Zambry is seeking to convene the Perak State Assembly on May 7.

However, the Federal Court decision yesterday is defective, null and void.

Firstly, it was not the Speaker who suspended Zambry and his six executive council members, but the Perak State Assembly Committee of Privileges on Feb. 18.

In striking out the purported suspension order of the Perak State Assembly Speaker, the Federal Court was striking out an order that does not exist – as the suspension order was that of the Committee of Privileges.

Zambry and his six exco members had sued the wrong party and as a result, has got a Federal Court order against the wrong party.

Secondly, the Federal Court decision is a serious violation of the doctrine of separation of powers among the three branches of state, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, each recognizing and respecting the limits of its own powers not to trespass into the powers of the other branches.

Both the legislative and judicial branches of state have powers to punish contempt for disobedience to their decisions.

Is Malaysia to witness a situation where the legislature (whether Parliament or State Assembly) issues contempt orders against the Judiciary, while the Judiciary itself issues contempt orders against the Legislature, because of conflict of decisions over the same subject-matter – as happened in some other countries which do not understand or are not prepared to give scrupulous regard to the doctrine of separation of powers?

If this unfortunate scenario should take place, it will spawn a new crisis of confidence in the judiciary – which will be a great disservice to the cause of rebuilding national and international confidence in the competence, professionalism and integrity of national institutions particularly after the Malaysian judiciary has suffered two decades of “darkness” from which it has not fully recovered.

The undemocratic, unethical, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak must be resolved in the shortest possible time, without dragging more and more institutions into the mud, so that Malaysians can unite as one to face the world’s worst global economic crisis in a century.

The fairest and most democratic solution to the Perak political and constitutional stalemate is to dissolve the Perak State Assembly to return the mandate to the Perakians to elect the State Government they want, instead of trying to legitimize the hijacking of the political rights of Perakians by various dubious means.

Instead of trying to convene a Perak State Assembly meeting on May 7 which will bring the Perak political and constitutional crisis to a new level of confrontation, Zambry should take full cognizance of the Barisan Nasional defeat in the Bukit Gantang by-election and agree to the immediate dissolution of Perak State Assembly for new state general election to be held.

  1. #1 by chengho on Friday, 17 April 2009 - 2:26 pm

    Bt Lanjan and Penantian election or not?

  2. #2 by sheriff singh on Friday, 17 April 2009 - 2:38 pm

    The Sultan can still issue a Royal Command that the State Assembly be convened before May 13. So a sitting will still have to be held by this date and if so, the State Assembly should remain intact and there will not be any state wide elections.

    It will be very interesting indeed to see how things play out in the coming days.

    Yes, we are set for interesting fireworks.

    This should be “Visit Perak Year 2009”.

  3. #3 by KeenWatcher_01 on Friday, 17 April 2009 - 2:38 pm

    This shows what type of \judges\ we have in Malaysia. Does it matter when they read the oath before? Someone up there please help.

  4. #4 by lee wee tak_ on Friday, 17 April 2009 - 2:39 pm


    if Eli Wong is carrying on then should only be 1 by election in Penantian, right?

    Too many by-election initiated by PR is not a healthy sign. So far there is Permatang Pauh, Bukit Selambu and now Penantian. Perhaps there is one difference that can be noted. Melaka CM can carry on as a CM despite guilty of money politics whereas Penang DCP is forced to resign because of allegation of inpropriety. Well we know which stat ethe cat resides.

    The only benefit is more “dead man ang pow” will be distributed.

    The Federal Court ruling should open the door for Gorbind to challenge the Parliamen Speaker for the suspension then.

  5. #5 by Richardqed on Friday, 17 April 2009 - 2:40 pm

    YB, you should tell them about their mistake later. Now, these BN clowns are going to rush through court again, and get another favourable decision on the right matter.

    This also makes people wonder: if the court had really looked deeply into this matter, wouldn’t they have also realized there was no case at all? The only way such a blunder can be made would be that their mindset is: no matter what the matter, just take BN’s side.

  6. #6 by vchi on Friday, 17 April 2009 - 2:58 pm

    The speaker should ignore the court order – after all, the legislative branch has clearly issued one verdict (as a court of law), and the other branch (with equal standing) has no right to overturn the verdict.

  7. #7 by sheriff singh on Friday, 17 April 2009 - 3:15 pm

    The clerk of the Assembly issued the notice of meeting? On whose instructions? Does the Speaker know? Does the Ruler know? More usurping?

  8. #8 by LG on Friday, 17 April 2009 - 3:21 pm

    PM really care for the interest of the people?

    If not PR may ask the Perak State Assembly Committee of Privileges to sue the MB and the six and as the Federal Court. Suits and counter-suits are not profitable and these recent judgements from the Courts have made the judiciary a mockery in the eyes of many even the decent, educated and law abiding ones

    BN knows that it has does’nt command the confidence of the majority of the Perakians. Thus they are trying to avoid the State re-election at all cost, giving reason of wastage of public funds on holding the election.

    Yes it costly to hold the State election but this is the public’s money and the generally feeling and opnion of majority Malaysian not just Perakian is to have such re-election. This is required in order to put to rest whether BN or PR commands the confidence of the majority of Perakians so that the Perak people and the its government can go forward in tackling other urgent social-economic issues.

    To the PM,
    It you care for the interest of the poeple please dissolve the state assembly and have the re-election. The present suitation is Perak is too uncertainty and causing too much anxiety, time, energy and even money (with the law suits,counter law suit and the politickings) for the people.

  9. #9 by raven77 on Friday, 17 April 2009 - 3:25 pm

    With utmost urgency, Sivakumar thru another tree meeting which can be held in a hotel this time with perhaps 20,000 supporters watching…should issue contempt charges against all five judges and follow this up with a warrant of arrest….the Assembly should also issue a statement that the judiciary’s judgment is null and void……so that ignorant people like me dont end up confused.Ini macam tak payah election maa…..judges can throw out elected reps suka suka……….

  10. #10 by sheriff singh on Friday, 17 April 2009 - 3:37 pm

    Who is qualified to review the Federal Court’s decision? It can only be the Federal Court itself.

    But lets see. The Chief Justice is an ex-UMNO related man, so he would rule himself out. So would the 5 judges who sat as otherwise it would be a conflict of interest.

    Since there are only 12 FC judges, this leaves us with only 6 for the review and we would need at least 5 judges to match the original 5.

    No much choice, eh? Unless they look for the lower Court of Appeal judges to sit and review the more senior Federal Court judges’ decision. Not very good impressions.

  11. #11 by LALILOo on Friday, 17 April 2009 - 4:36 pm

    1. Since Sivakumar and gang have always stressed on the separation of powers between the state assembly and the court, then it is only logical for them to disregard anything that came from the court.
    Unless, of course, they have been fooling with the rakyat all along.

    2. Supposing they aren’t, then the court will start issuing directives and ultimatum. So will the AG, police and MACC…..and err…that India celup MB as well.

    3. Since they started the whole thing with a bang, they should only ends it with a bang as well, that is not to submit themselves to any of these ultimatums.

    4. “ANYTHING” that happens after this, the rakyat can “correct” for them in the next general election. For now, just bear and grit your teeth until the next general election.

    5. Being the newly elected-government, all injustice will be automatically corrected. All lop-sided judgement by the Courts will be reviewed.

    6. Of course, the AG, CJ and IGP will be replaced.

  12. #12 by HJ Angus on Friday, 17 April 2009 - 4:39 pm

    Given the sick state of the Judiciary in Malaysia after it got zapped many years ago, perhaps the only remedy allbeit expensive is to use back the Privy Council – but not sure if they want to do the dirty work now.

  13. #13 by Jeffrey on Friday, 17 April 2009 - 4:46 pm

    Instead of “Federal Court decision yesterday is defective, null and void”, I believe the standard (diplomatic) language, is Malaysiakini Kim Quek’s “the Federal Court appears to have erred…..etc” :)

  14. #14 by sightseeing on Friday, 17 April 2009 - 4:46 pm

    ||the Federal Court was striking out an order that does not exist – as the suspension order was that of the Committee of Privileges.||

    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.

  15. #15 by ekans on Friday, 17 April 2009 - 5:26 pm

    Federal court or farcical court?

  16. #16 by ReformMalaysia on Friday, 17 April 2009 - 5:49 pm


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


  17. #17 by taiking on Friday, 17 April 2009 - 6:47 pm

    Suing wrong party huh? So wot is the effect of the order issued? Valid? Invalid? Effective? Ineffective? Enforceable? Unenforceable? Is it a futile order? Well not quite because it is more a meaningless order.

    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.

  18. #18 by taiking on Friday, 17 April 2009 - 7:02 pm


    How does it sound? Is it effective? Valid?

  19. #19 by despin on Friday, 17 April 2009 - 7:37 pm

    After a couple of weeks, the new war-cry by Najib has almost completely unravelled.

    “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?

  20. #20 by wesuffer on Friday, 17 April 2009 - 10:22 pm

    MB VS MB case still pending in court
    how come they fix the state assembly date already

  21. #21 by eyuppie on Friday, 17 April 2009 - 11:00 pm

    YB LKS,
    Please don’t just talk, do and act something more constructive! If you said that the Federal Court’s decision is defective, null and void, then Speaker Sivakumar should NOT be afraid to challenge the Federal Court’s decision by IGNORING the order from the Federal Court. And call upon the legislature (State Assembly) issues contempt orders against the Judiciary. If Sivakumar knows what he has been doing is within the Constitution, then continue to do what he suppose to do to uphold the Constitution and not disappoint the Perakians. Otherwise, we are very tired of following all your comments but seem nothing can be done by you or DAP or the Pakatan Rakyat, only empty talk. Like a saying … NATO … NO ACTION TALK ONLY! Also, where is your Opposition Leader Anwar that only know how to dream of becoming the PM but contribute or helping very little to the Pakatan Rakyat especially when PR facing attack from the BN???

  22. #22 by boh-liao on Saturday, 18 April 2009 - 12:54 am

    The judgement of the Federal Court is not valid.

    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!

  23. #23 by HJ Angus on Saturday, 18 April 2009 - 1:09 am

    First they want to control all water resources….
    Now they also want to control the states.

  24. #24 by Lee HS on Saturday, 18 April 2009 - 2:25 am

    A corrupt government will siphone more money out of the government coffer than a few by-elections. By-election is peanut in this case.

  25. #25 by lopez on Saturday, 18 April 2009 - 9:15 am

    there appears a parallel …where the feww poor blokes who manage to halt a crime but were instead being charged.

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

  26. #26 by DAP man on Saturday, 18 April 2009 - 10:52 am

    In any case, as NH Chand had said, the Federal Court has no bloody business to interfere in the affairs of the state assembly. even if the order was against the COP, the FCourt could be told to go fly kite.

  27. #27 by taiking on Saturday, 18 April 2009 - 10:55 am

    The Federal Court decision is not wrong. Its just pointless. Who has power to suspend those assemlymen? Siva the speaker or the Committee of Privileges? The suspension was effected by the latter which I shall for the purposes of argument assume to be the proper body with the power to suspend assemblyman. [I dont think I am wrong with this assumption.] If that is the case then Siva the speaker has no power to suspend those clowns. Those clowns sued Siva the speaker and the Federal Court was correct to say that Siva the speaker has no right to suspend them. Indeed.

    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.

  28. #28 by voice on Saturday, 18 April 2009 - 12:02 pm

    This is the darkest era of modern democracy, the country situation has turned from bad to worst, who would want to invest in this country governed by a bunch of robbers who uses police force and even military at their will to keep them in power?
    We need a true, fast and swift reformation. PR, please save us!

  29. #29 by DAP man on Saturday, 18 April 2009 - 1:12 pm

    “..must be resolved in the shortest possible time, without dragging more and more institutions into the mud..”

    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.

  30. #30 by Taxidriver on Saturday, 18 April 2009 - 4:52 pm

    Ha Ha Ha Hee Hee Hee Ha Hee Ha Hee Kee Kee Kee. Malaysian Federal Court judges don’t know their job! Never even studied the fact of the case, passed judgement and now the whole is laughing…….Ha Ha Ha Hee Hee Hee Ha Ha Hee Hee Kee Kee Kee

  31. #31 by Taxidriver on Saturday, 18 April 2009 - 6:03 pm


    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 …………

  32. #32 by Bigjoe on Sunday, 19 April 2009 - 9:53 am

    What is worrying is this. BN don’t see that its pointless to keep going with so many issues involved. If they go ahead, everything they do and happen under their govt is subject to legal law suits and the courts would be jammed.

    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…

  33. #33 by kerishamuddinitis on Sunday, 19 April 2009 - 11:11 am

    1Sultan…stripped of personal immunity; caught in an impasse

    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.

You must be logged in to post a comment.