How to spot the Usurper between Ganesan and Sivakumar?

By NH Chan

News item in MalaysiaKini – July 24, 2009

I found this news item in MalaysiaKini – an online news portal:

Speaker vs. Speaker: Police report over letterhead
Humayun Kabir Jul 24, 09

Barisan Nasional state assembly speaker R Ganesan lodged a police report with the Ipoh district police headquarters accusing his Parkatan Rakyat speaker V Sivakumar of illegally using the speaker’s official letterhead twice to communicate with him.

Ganesan said the ‘abuse of official letterheads’ happened twice – Sivakumar’s July 14 reply to his affidavit and summoning Ganesan to an inquiry on July 27.

Ganesan claimed that he was appointed as the legal speaker on May 7 to replace Sivakumar and thus the latter had used the letterheads ‘illegally’.

Sivakumar had summoned Ganesan before him and his Committee of Powers and Privileges on Monday to answer charges of contempt and unlawful conduct.

Sivakumar in his summon notice stated that Ganesan had no right to be in the House during the riotous May 7 assembly sitting and had acted contrary to parliamentary practice when he instructed the police to remove Sivakumar from the speaker’s chair at 2.4Opm that day.

‘I am the lawful speaker’.

Sivakumar, who is Tronoh assemblyman, maintained that he was the legal Perak Speaker and also chairman of the powers and privileges committee.

Now, to us ordinary folk of Perak and even elsewhere in this country, we all know that Sivakumar is the Speaker of the Perak Legislative Assembly. Yet there is this shameless individual Ganesan who pretended to be oblivious of the fact that Sivakumar is the elected Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. Before I read out the law on the status of Sivakumar so as to show that the imposter Ganesan has no legitimate claim whatsoever to the Speaker’s chair at all, I think it is appropriate to pause here for a moment to recount Shakespeare’s Hamlet for us to understand the character of Ganesan.

Most of us have read Hamlet, a tragedy by William Shakespeare, during our school days. If you have not or if you have forgotten, here is the synopsis which is taken from The Oxford Companion to English Literature, Fourth Edition 1967. A noble king of Denmark has been murdered by his brother Claudius after he had seduced Gertrude, the king’s wife and mother of Hamlet. Claudius has supplanted on the throne the murdered king’s son, Hamlet. He then married with indecent haste the dead king’s widow Gertrude.

The play presents itself to an Elizabethan audience, like Dr Johnson and other eighteenth century critics apprehend, the political situation of the era. Dr Johnson calls Claudius “the Usurper”. Hamlet was the rightful heir to the throne who had been robbed of his inheritance by an uncle who had taken his place on the throne. The play ends with the untimely end of the Usurper Claudius and Hamlet’s mother who had accidentally taken poison.

The foresight of Shakespeare is uncanny in its resemblance to the political scene in Perak. Here in present day Perak, the Usurper Ganesan fits into the character of Claudius who for position and power has forsaken the application of the Perak Constitution in assuming the mantle of Speaker by nefarious action. Like Claudius, Ganesan is an unprincipled Usurper – his crass behaviour is that of a bully and ruffian – a rogue and a thug. Like Claudius, he has robbed the incumbent Speaker Sivakumar of his rightful place as Speaker of the legislature by force.

On the other hand Sivakumar is the duly elected Speaker. He was appointed by the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly of Perak shortly after the general election in March 2008; and it is there that he will remain as the legitimate speaker of the assembly until he resigns his office (Article 36A(2)) or is disqualified (under Clause 5) or the Assembly has resolved that he vacates his office as speaker (Article 36A(2)(d)). That that is the true position and status of the office of Speaker as Sivakumar rightfully is. It is so provided in Article 36A of the Laws of the Constitution of Perak. Thus:

36A. (2) The Speaker may at any time resign his office and shall vacate his office –
(c ) upon being disqualified under Clause (5); or
(d) if the Assembly at any time so resolves.

(5) A member who is elected to be Speaker shall be disqualified from holding such office if after three months of his election to such office or at any time thereafter he is or becomes a member of any board of directors or board of management, or an officer or employee, or engages in the affairs or business, of any organization or body, whether corporate or otherwise, or of any commercial industrial or other undertaking, whether or not he recives any remuneration, reward, profit or benefit from it:

Provided that such disqualification shall not apply where such organization or body carries out any welfare or voluntary work or objective beneficial to the community

(6) Where any question arises regarding the disqualification of the Speaker under paragraph [sic] (5) the decision of the Legislative Assembly shall be taken and shall be final.

The effect of Article 36A, Clauses 2, 2(c) and (d), 5 and 6 is that Sivakumar cannot be deposed by any Usurper to the chair of the Speaker. In this case we have read in the newspapers that unlawful force had been used – Sivakumar was manhandled by the police – who evicted the constitutionally elected Speaker Sivakumar from the Legislative Assembly. For this dastardly and criminal act committed by those policemen and the Usurper Ganesan – who has admitted that it was he who had summoned the police, and all those other persons who participated in the forceful eviction of Sivakumar, Sivakumar has a claim against each and every one of them for substantial damages which should include a claim for aggravated or exemplary damages for trespass to his person for assault and battery. Possibly even for false imprisonment – if I remember correctly, he was restrained by the police to enable the Usurper Ganesan to supplant on the chair of Speaker Sivakumar.

Furthermore, all the perpetrators are in contempt of the Legislative Assembly and could be dealt with by the Speaker Sivakumar.

So then, what is the thug and Usurper Ganesan talking about in his rant about the legitimate Speaker Sivakumar using the letterhead of his office of Speaker of the Legislative Assembly? Everything the Usurper Ganesan says, as reported in the news item of 24 July 2009 in Malaysia Kini, is untrue. The Usurper Ganesan is not the rightful Speaker. Mr Sivakumar is. The Usurper Ganesan is the thief who tried to rob the honest and legitimate incumbent Mr Sivakumar of his rightful place as Speaker in the Legislature of Perak. Imagine this. When intruders enter your home to commit robbery and you call the police. Instead of apprehending the robbers the police joined hands with the robbers and robbed you. After that the robbers lodged a report with the police that you stole from them. This is what is happening in Perak – The Usurper Ganesan has “lodged a police report with the Ipoh district police headquarters” and he has the cheek to accuse “Speaker V Sivakumar of illegally using the speaker’s official letterhead twice”. ‘Why can’t the duly appointed Speaker use his official letterhead? Surely he is entitled to do so. What right has the Usurper Ganesan to say otherwise?

In conclusion, therefore, since Speaker Sivakumar has not resigned his office (Article 36A(2)), nor was he disqualified under Clause 5 of Article 36A, nor did the Perak Legislative Assembly resolve that he vacates his office (Article 36A(2)(d)), he is still and always has been the legitimate elected Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Perak.

In Perak, it is only the Legislative Assembly that has the power to resolve that the incumbent Speaker vacates his office. This is what Article 36A, Clause 2 (d) of the Laws of the Constitution of Perak states:

36A. (2) The Speaker may at any time resign his office and shall vacate his office

(d) if the Assembly at any time so resolves. (I have supplied the emphasis)

There has been no resolution by the Legislative Assembly that Speaker Sivakumar is to vacate his office as Speaker. Article 36(2)(d) is the only provision in the Laws of the Constitution of Perak where a Speaker can be required to vacate his office by resolution of the assembly.

Another startling news report in Malaysia Kini – July 27, 2009

Then on 27 July 2009 there appears another shocking news report. Here is the report from Malaysiakini:

Speaker’ Sivakumar denied entry by police
Humayun Kabir I Jul 27, 09 5:44pm

There was a 70 minute stand-off when Pakatan Perak Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar and his Rights and Privileges Committee members were denied entry into the State Secretariat.

The six-member committee was to hold an inquiry into the conduct of BNappointed state Speaker R Ganesan, who called police into the House to remove Sivakumar during the riotous May 7 assembly sitting.

The committee also wanted to interview three witnesses – Pokok Assam’s Yee Seu Kai who lodged the complaint against Ganesan DAP state chairman Ngeh Koo Ham and constitutional law expert Tommy Thomas.

Wall of police personnel

Sivakumar and his six-member committee then arrived at the State Secretariat at 9.55am to face a wall of police personnel blocking their path into the state government building.

Ipoh CID chief Glenn Anthony told Sivakumar that he had instructions from the state secretary not to allow him and his committee into the building.

Now, all of you right thinking members of the public in Perak and elsewhere in this country would like to know why the CID chief Glenn Anthony are taking the side of the wrongdoer? Imagine yourself returning to your home and seeing a wall of police personnel preventing you from entering your home and you are told by the police chief that he has instructions from your servant not to allow you to enter your home when you are the boss. The Speaker Sivakumar is the boss; not the State secretary and certainly not the imposter Ganesan.

Yet another news report – the Sun Friday July 31, 2009

Next is the report in the Sun newspaper of Friday July31 2009. The Sun gave a misleading report It took the side of the Usurper Ganesan. It declared that the imposter is the Speaker, thus:

Sivakumar’s rights and privileges panel dissolved
IPOH: The previous Perak Rights and Priveleges Committee headed by Tronoh assemblyman and former speaker V. Sivakumar can no longer hold a meeting as it is deemed dissolved after the May 7 sitting of the state assembly.

The reading public knows, because I have informed them that the incumbent Speaker Sivakumar cannot be forced to vacate his office until the Legislative Assembly of Perak has passed a resolution that he shall vacate his office: see Article 36(2)(d) of the Constitution of Perak as shown above. The Sun should not mislead the public in this way. The report in the Sun continues:

State assembly secretary Abdullah Antong Sabri said yesterday the committee was valid for only one term and it ceased to function after the state assembly entered a new term.

“New committee members were appointed during the meeting of the second term on May 7. As such, the previous committee chaired by Sivakumar is no longer valid,” Abdullah said.

He said Datuk R. Ganesan was appointed the new state assembly speaker and chairman of the Rights and Privileges committee during the sitting.

Who appointed Ganesan? Don’t these people know that they cannot do as they please? They have to apply Article 36A(2)(d) as it stands. They cannot take the law into their own hands. Every one in this country is under the law. The report in the Sun goes on to say:

Shamshuzaman conveyed a directive from State Secretary Datuk Abdul Rabman Hashim that the committee was barred from holding its meeting at the complex as it was no longer valid and relevant.

Does not the State Secretary realize that he is only a civil servant and he is not the law?

He is not above the law and he should not serve the imposter and Usurper Ganesan. He cannot take the side of the wrongdoer. He knows that the legitimate Speaker is Sivakumar who cannot be forced to vacate his office of Speaker without the Assembly resolving that he so vacates his office.

It looks as if all these people who sided with the imposter and Usurper Ganesan are all in cahoots, otherwise, how do you explain how they seemed to have acted in unison! The State Secretary should know his place which is to be in charge of the administrative management of the State – in short he is only a manager of the state government; a civil servant – no more than, no less. He is not above the Speaker who is an elected member of the Legislative Assembly and he cannot speak on behalf of the Speaker who is appointed as such by the Assembly. He has no authority to issue instructions to the police to obstruct the Speaker. This is how Article 36C puts it:

36C. (1) There shall be constituted the offices of State Secretary, State Legal Adviser and State Financial Officer and appointments thereto shall be made by the appropriate Service Commission from amongst members of any of the relevant public services.

(2) (a) The State Secretary shall be a Malay and profess the Muslim religion and shall be the principle officer responsible for the administrative management of the State.

(3) Every such official shall have the right to take part in the proceedings of the State Executive Council and the Legislative Assembly and may be appointed to any committee thereof but shall not have any vote in the State Executive Council or the Legislative Assembly or in any such committee.

So, how dare he issues a directive that the Rights and Privileges Committee is barred from holding its meeting at the complex as it was no longer valid and relevant. Who is he to say that the committee is no longer valid and relevant? He does not even know the State Constitution, otherwise he would not be saying anything so stupid. Does he not realize that he is acting beyond his powers under Article 36C of the Perak Constitution when he obstructs the rights of elected representatives of the State from entering the office of the State Legislature? In the eye of the people of Perak this nasty individual is just a minion of the people’s elected representatives.

This final piece of news from The Star indicates that they are all in cahoots

And finally, to cap it all we have Zambry the illegitimate Menteri Besar of Perak entering the fray of inequity. The story appears in The Star newspaper this morning, Monday 3 August 2009. It reads:

Zambry: Don’t allow anarchy to rule

TAPAH: The Government has been urged not to allow anarchy to reign to satisfy one man’s ambition. Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Zambry Abd Kadir said the anti-ISA rallies in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday was all about fulfilling Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s ambition to become Prime Minister. “What would happen if he succeeds and the culture continues? Then the country will have no peace and will not be able to prosper,” he told reporters after opening the Tapah Umno delegate meeting yesterday.
“Enough is enough, we need to put a stop to it,” he added.

Is he serious? It looks like he is talking of himself- ever heard of the adage, those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones or the pot calling the kettle black? He forgets that he is one of those who have caused the Perak debacle. He is one of the people responsible for sowing the seeds of discontent in Perak.

Remember what the late Lord Denning said in The Family Story, p 179:

No matter who it is – who is guilty of the abuse or misuse. Be it government, national or local. . . . Whoever it be, no matter how powerful, the law should provide a remedy for the abuse or misuse of power. Else the oppressed will get to the point when they will stand it no longer. They will find their own remedy. There will be anarchy.

If you have been reading my articles on the Perak debacle you will see the abuse and misuse of power being perpetrated by those in power. And the higher judiciary are also guilty or such abuse or misuse by not administering the law as it stands – they have even refused to apply the plain language of the Constitution, Federal or State by giving their own meaning to unambiguous words just like Humpty Dumpty did.

And the only way to prevent anarchy from getting a hold in this country is to return to the days of our former glory. Lord Denning puts it admirably, p 179:

To my mind it is fundamental in our society that a judge should do his utmost to see that powers are not abused or misused. If they come into conflict with the freedom of the individual – or with any other of our fundamental freedoms – then it is the province of the judge to hold the balance between the competing interests. In holding that balance the judges must put freedom first.

And our judiciary should also take not of the wise words of Lord Denning, still on p 179:

But if and when wrongs are thereby suffered by any of us, what is the remedy? The courts must do this. Of all the great tasks that lie ahead, this is the greatest. Properly exercised the new powers of the executive lead to the Welfare State: but abused they lead to the totalitarian State. None such must ever be allowed in this country. . . . Let us prove ourselves equal to the challenge.

  1. #1 by sean on Monday, 3 August 2009 - 8:47 pm

    So where do we get the remedy when the Highest court turn their back at us?Election?But ASSUMING THAT we win the 13th GE….but BN as usual uses its dirty and filthy trick again by using the cops and military like what ‘s happening in Iran?Then again…where do we go for remedy?

  2. #2 by Bigjoe on Monday, 3 August 2009 - 8:47 pm

    What is happening is standard operating procedures when in doubt – just overwhelm the other side with whatever means possible regardless of the rules and implication – make such a big mess, the other side give up.

    There is only one problem – the other side is NOT overwhelm. They pretty much is sticking to their MO (modus operandi) – stick to their principles and rules. They are not about to be overwhelmed..

    This means that the mess just gets bigger and bigger. This latest round of suits just makes it more complicated and messes up the rule book. How are they going to clean it up if the other side never gives up and move away? Sooner or later people will NOT BE happy with the mess in their neigbourhood and will point at the ruling party – BN.

    That is why its rumoured that Najib is considering a snap election to resolve this.. If he does, he will be digging his own grave and the Rakyat will send him away.. He can’t win so soon after Teoh Beng Hock’s death and a reinvigorated ISA movement..

    But the problem is without some sort of win soon, the troops are going to ber restless . Either he turn on the tap to let the troops have a good time OR he will have to just ignore them and let the pressure build against him from within the party. Which will Najib choose?

  3. #3 by SpeakUp on Monday, 3 August 2009 - 8:49 pm

    I wish NH Chan would be lead counsel in the cases against Zambry … then if he is said to be wrong we will know that Perak is in a very wrong situation. Sad that someone like NH Chan should be retired and only left to write articles for blogs. Its a real waste …

  4. #4 by sheriff singh on Monday, 3 August 2009 - 11:25 pm

    If you dig deep, you will find they are all UMNO / BN people and sympathisers and you know where their loyalty lies. They will do all that is necessary, even if these are idiotic, to ensure their own survival. That’s why strange things happened, keep happening and will happen, to keep PR out and their jobs safe. Common sense and decency don’t work any more nor mean anything. Their continued well being is paramount and they will be rewarded.

    Lord Dennings? In this country, who cares about what he says or write anymore. Its the dalangs that calls the shots. Our judiciary has been turned upside down. Even HH Sultan Azlan appeared shocked at the turn of events. In my opinion, his recent speech was a hidden plea, of one that was calling out for help to all other parties and institutions to right what has been erroneous.

    The sultan has been put in a difficult position through initial errors but it appeared difficult for him to openly say so and correct the errors, so he cleverly drafted his speech.

    To the government, the Sultan asked for transparency, responsibility and accountability, to do the right things. He was hoping the BN government will correct what was ostensibly wrong. He’s still waiting.

    To the judges, he was sending a message to them to put right what was wrong. But instead, the judges appear to be condoning, enlarging and continuing on with the errors (perhaps wanting to protect the dignity of the institution of the sultans) through their puzzling decisions and actions, thereby making things even worse, towards a point of no return even.

    So the sultan’s veiled pleas seems to be lost and unappreciated.

    So where do we go from here? Nowhere, unless some institution dares to say “Enough is enough. Let’s correct this sad state of affairs. Let us have a legitimate baby instead of a b…..d”.

  5. #5 by kinta kid on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 - 1:00 am

    uncle kit. i did a short photo story of yb sivakumar and the committee being locked out. it is all a “comedy of errors” but now it doesn’t seem funny anymore.anyway after reading judge nh chan’s memo i thought i’d share with you another Perakians view of what we think of this unjust stalemate. my blog site is


  6. #6 by ekompute on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 - 3:15 am

    “How to spot the Usurper between Ganesan and Sivakumar?”

    Very simple. If Sivakumar is from the Barisan Nasional, he will still be the Perak State Assembly Speaker… that much I know. So much for Malaysian politics today. No different from armed robberies.

  7. #7 by ekompute on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 - 4:04 am

    UMNO’s bullying tactics does not go too well with the public and that’s why they have lost their credibility. But that arrogance is something that is so difficult to avoid when one has ruled the country continuously for more than half a decade. It is a natural phenomenon. Pride comes before a fall. UMNO knows it, and they know they are heading for the longkang, but they just can’t help it. The Malay populace, on the other hand, have awakened to the reality that UMNO is fighting in the name of the Malays and no longer for the Malays. I will be surprised if BN wins the 13th general election. Looks like they may have to resort to something drastic like declaring a state of emergency and calling in the army to restore themselves to power…. another bullying tactic. That’s all they know these days. Just bullying tactics to sustain them in power. Muhyiddin has given a hint. UMNO believes in democracy only if it suits its purpose… otherwise, we will be another Myanmar.

  8. #8 by Jaswant on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 - 6:41 am

    “Jaswantball, let’s face reality here. You secretly visit my blog to read everyday. I know that. Just get out from your chest, you will feel better.” Limkamput

    Open your blog so we could read the rubbish you write. I bet there are no visitors to your blog. But since pulling down this screen you’ve been talking to yourself and so there should be a few by now. Or do you need more time??

  9. #9 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 - 7:07 am

    The first item on the agenda of Barisan Nasional (BN) for May 7 Perak Legislative Assembly Meeting then was to have the motion to remove Pakatan Rakyat (“PR”) Speaker V. Sivakumar.

    Now according to N H Chan, Article 36A. (2)(d) of Perak State Constitution provides that the Speaker may be removed if the Legislative Assembly by majority (Assembly) so resolves.

    So the issue is whether the Assembly had so (validly) resolved (that PR Speaker be replaced by Ganesan) in the chaotic May 7 Assembly sitting, as what BN claims.

    This is chicken or egg issue, of which comes first.

    (The position of speaker is always crucial as he controls assembly proceedings).

    Here for the Assembly to so revolve on May 7, the sitting Speaker (Sivakumar) must first allow the motion to be introduced by BN to remove himself and be replaced by Ganesan.

    Of course Siva won ‘t do so. In fact he won’t even start Assembly proceedings until Zambry & his cohorts (the BN assemblymen and Independents) left the Assembly….

    What next happened to break this impasse?

    There were 6 sequential steps: –

    1. Deputy Speaker Hee Yit Fong snatched the microphone from Siva to “take over” and preside over the Assembly as ‘acting’ Speaker sitting from the opposition seat.

    2. Zambry then proposed Ganesan be appointed as the new Speaker and the motion was supported by the BN assemblymen and Independents to replace Siva by Ganesan.

    3. Hee invited Ganesan to enter the Assembly.

    4. Zambry then put the official robe over Ganesan, who took the oath of office right away and took over the proceeding from Hee.

    5. Ganesan accepted four more motions – the appointment of new members for three committees, namely the Standing Order Committee, Rights and Privileges Committee and State Public Accounts Committee, and to invalidate the “under-the-tree” state assembly sitting chaired by Sivakumar and attended by several assemblymen led by Muhammad Nizar on March 3.

    6. The motions were supported by the BN assemblymen and Independents.

    If Ganesan were (according to NH Chan) the equivalent of King Claudius in Shakespeare’s Hamlet (who usurped the Denmark’s throne as Ganesan did, Siva’s Speaker’s throne), then Hee Yit Fong would be the Polonious, the Lord Chamberlain and chief courtier in Hamlet assisting Claudius!

    One can see from the above, Hee’s “taking over” from Siva and presiding over the Assembly as ‘acting’ Speaker sitting from the opposition seat was the first act that started the chain of events right up to 6.

    In other words, Ganesan’s usurpation of Speaker’s seat was enabled by Hee’s first act of “taking over” from Siva and presiding over the Assembly as ‘acting’ Speaker .

    Rightly, the legality of Ganesan’s ‘usurpation’ will turn on the first (a priori) question whether our Polonious Hee could, at first instance, validly take over, as ‘acting’ Speaker, from Siva the Speaker’s position under the circumstances (even before Assembly officially started as signalled by Raja Nazrin’s opening ceremonial speech as Regent) in order to ‘transfer’ to and vest that Speaker’s position in Ganesan, for Ganesan to, in turn, legally preside over the Assembly and accept four more other motions referred to in step 5 above.

  10. #10 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 - 7:17 am

    “Jaswantball, let’s face reality here. You secretly visit my blog to read everyday. I know that. Just get out from your chest, you will feel better.” – Limkamput

    However the blog declares itself to be open only to “invited readers only” who must first “tell us who you are!” Jaswant could not secretly visit the blog without first being am “invited reader”.

  11. #11 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 - 7:20 am

    Ooops “…AN ‘invited reader’…”

  12. #12 by Loh on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 - 9:14 am

    ///1. Deputy Speaker Hee Yit Fong snatched the microphone from Siva to “take over” and preside over the Assembly as ‘acting’ Speaker sitting from the opposition seat.///– Jeffrey
    The Deputy can only act as Acting Speaker in the absence of the Speaker, or if authorised by the Speaker. Hee was not the legitimate Acting Speaker, and if Zanbry and Ganesan chose to take ‘order’ from her, then they did it with the knowledge that they acted without proper authorisation. Hee was guilty of usurping power as Acting Speaker. It was a coup d’etat, and the illegal government had sought to be pardoned by the Sultan.

  13. #13 by k1980 on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 - 9:29 am

    How R Ganesan be state assembly speaker when he was ejected in the March 2008 GE? He must first be appointed a senator, just as that worthless reject Koh TK!

  14. #14 by pulau_sibu on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 - 9:48 am

    When did Tiong King Sing become so rich, having his private jet? I thought only Taib Mahmud and Ting Pek King has one. Apparently many people in Sarawak have their private jet. Is it the result of becoming a politician?

  15. #15 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 - 10:26 am

    ///The Deputy can only act as Acting Speaker in the absence of the Speaker, or if authorised by the Speaker. Hee was not the legitimate Acting Speaker…. Hee was guilty of usurping power as Acting Speaker/// – Loh

    I agree that that would be the way to argue for Sivakumar. The only conterpoint the other side may raise is that for reasons of avoiding conflicts of interest on premise that no man ought to judge his own cause, the other side would argue that Siva could not preside assembly to stop a motion pertaining to his own removal by another.

    //How R Ganesan be state assembly speaker when he was ejected in the March 2008 GE?// – K1980

    If I were not mistaken, the Speaker appointed to the Perak State legislative assembly, as per the Perak State Constitution, need not himself be a state assemblyman elected in the March 2008. (They had prior looked into this basic point before nominating Ganesan).

  16. #16 by SpeakUp on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 - 11:13 am

    Basically, it was a Circus at the sitting. The BN arrogance and lousy legal advise made the whole thing complicated. If Najib had been slightly more patient, Perak would 100% be theirs now! Useless guys …

You must be logged in to post a comment.