Tian Chua’s status as MP


Arr in Labuan w @tonypua 4DAP Labuan dinner/crmh @tianchua disqualified by RM2k fine but he has 14 days 2appeal under Art 48 of Constitution
06/18/2010 01:39 PM

Position pertaining 2 @tianchua’s parliamentary position is laid down in Art 48(4)(4) of Msian Constitution
06/18/2010 01:49 PM

As I read Art 48 Constitution it makes no difference whether fine paid or not, so long as appeal is exercised within 14 days RT @PuteraPedang @tonypua @tianchua TC didn’t bother to appeal. He already paid the penalty in full.
06/18/2010 03:26 PM

Whatever legal status or outcome of @tianchua’s appeal Art 48(4)(4) which grants him 14 days leeway will govern his qualification as MP RT @thomas_su @edmundbon Appeal avenue exhausted when Hct made decision. Further appeal not as of right. Whether fine paid, sentence stays.
06/18/2010 04:18 PM

Art 48(4)(4) provides dat disqualification of an MP fined “not less than RM2k” shall take effect upon expiry of 14days from sentence but this is deferred if he appeals within these 14days or initiates any other court proceedings re conviction/sentence – which then depends on final outcome
06/18/2010 04:40 PM

  1. #1 by boh-liao on Friday, 18 June 2010 - 6:30 pm

    Next time bite baik baik d right target lah
    Worth it even got disqualified as MP mah

    KTK said TQ 2 TC n is getting ready 2 stand as BN candidate in d coming buy election
    Gerakan cepat cepat claimed 2 stand b4 MIC nominates another (deleted) BN candidate

    Lucky Batu residents, lots of $$$ on d way 2 them fr beloved supremo NR

  2. #2 by monsterball on Friday, 18 June 2010 - 6:51 pm

    Yip! …Karpal have said it…RM2000 fine is a tricky position. I think the judge meant well…to give Tian Chuan his Parliamentarian seat..but he should have made it RM1999 or RM1500 fine. Why go to the boarder line?
    However the Judge did made the remark…that there is no need for a by-election.

  3. #3 by monsterball on Friday, 18 June 2010 - 6:54 pm

    I hope Lim Kit Siang have recovered from his illness…that sounded like a touch of flu…which takes 3 days to recover.
    I wish him well and good.

  4. #4 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Friday, 18 June 2010 - 10:11 pm

    Jeffrey: “If the Judge wanted to fix Tian Chua to be disqualified he can easily impose a fine of RM2,500 – why should he fix at RM2000/-? – whats there to stop the judge”.

    I think the judge made an honest mistake. Judgements are not meant to be ambiguous. Any judge worth his salt wud steer away from silly controversies.

    What is plain English to u, Jeffrey, is not so plain after all? A matter quite as simple as still shud also be plain to the man sitting on the Transnational bus. AT least, I think so. It’s not any judge’s job to invite speculation and curry debate over his judgemnt.

    In any case, this is gud for BATU. Now Najib has more reason to remove subsidies to fund more by-elections. I think if Najib stays with his “I help u, u help me” mantra, then all PR MPs must consider resigning 1 by 1 so that 1 najib will lose his pants paying all those political ‘bribes’. I think PR will still win 99% of those seats….which means …still win all those seats back. That will ‘kill and bury’ UMNO for good.

    Smart judge, eh?

  5. #5 by Jeffrey on Friday, 18 June 2010 - 10:52 pm

    Re post #4 by ENDANGERED HORNHILL.

    What I think is the case is this:-

    1. I think the Justice Ghazali Cha has never intended Tian Chua to be disqualified. That is why he reduced his sentence to RM2000/- (borderline). If the judge had wanted to “fix” Tian Chua the judge could easily impose a fine of more than RM2000/- wjos to say he could not do that?

    2. I think the Judge honestly believe, when he read article 48 of the Constitution, that the disqualification limit set at “not less than RM2000/-” in article 48 includes RM2000/- meaning Tian Chua would be disqualified only if the fine was RM2001 but not at RM2000!

    3. In this I agree with the Judge Ghazali Cha.

    4. What I did not know – but it has since come to my attention- is the existence of a 1975 case decided by Justice Chang Min Tat/. There Fan Yew Teng was fined 2000/- for sedition. He was disqualified by Justice Chang Min Tat from his Menglembu seat! The Court then interpreted article 48 wordings as meaning as setting in the disqualification at RM2000 fine itself.

    5. I think the Fan Yew Teng’s case was wrongly decided. It flies against plain English!

    6. Karpal Singh, who defended Fan Yew Teng, knew about the case and thats why until that 1975 case weres overruled it is still law which explains why Karpal opines (based on Fan Yew Teng’s precedent) Tian Chua would be disqualified.

    7. Not knowing about that case – and agreeing with Justice Ghazali Cha that article 48 does not disqualify anyone fined RM2000/- I commented in last thread that Karpal was “politiking” by his view.

    8. I have since retracted unreservedly my comment – it has been moderated and not published in spite of 3 attempts – since Karpal’s opinion is based on the law laid down in Fan Yew Teng’s case that I did not know before or better, and neither I suspect, was the case known to or brought to the attention of Justice Ghazali Cha by Tian Chua’s counsel. (Had it otherwise been the case, Judge Ghazali would have surely imposed a fine of less than RM2000/- just to escape the disqualification set in Fan Yew Teng’s case.) In that sense I agree with ENDANGERED HORNBILL that “the judge made an honest mistake”. He made an honest mistake of the law because it was not brought to his attention the law as laid down in 1975 by the Fan Yew Teng’s case.

    9. However the case of Fan Yew Teng is, in my opinion, wrongly decided. It is bad law. (In that sense I agree with HJ Angus that the law as it stands now is an ass).

    10. Now the confusion is that Tian Chua has paid the fine and arguably Justice Ghazali Cha, no matter that he truly intended not to disqualify Tian Chua, could not retract his decision especially when he reads article 48 and believes its plain language commences the disqualification at anything MORE than RM2000 and not RM2000 itself.

    11. This being the case – if the EC & Speaker should decide to disqualify him based on 1975 Fan Yew Teng’s case – Tian Chua will have to appeal to higher courts to overrule the illogic and ultra legalistic, and in my opinion, untenable interpretation of article 48 of the Constitution laid down by Justice Chang Min Tat in that case 35 years ago.

  6. #6 by monsterball on Saturday, 19 June 2010 - 1:33 am

    Any PM who has 72% Malaysian support will declare an immediate snap 13th GE….to make sure he is elected by Malaysians and not appointed by UMNO Supreme Council buggers.
    Yes frogs can jump out of PR…and Najib can continue making deals…saying…”you help me…I help you”…and what happened in Sibu?
    That to me…is the biggest shame to a PM in Malaysia…yet he felt no same????
    72% support from Malaysians?
    What a joke.
    Now he buys a kitten to show he loves animals.
    He will keep on kissing babies and play with children.
    All these are to program our minds.,.what a kind and generous PM we have now.
    He may try hard to change and be so..but it is 30 years too late..and no one is impressed with his low class acting.
    UMNO B must be voted out. It stayed too long and we do have an excellent alternative…right now.
    Najib knows that too well…and keep putting out one sided news in papers and TVs news…to brainwash Malaysians..to keep voting UMNO B to govern forever.
    Only idiots and racists will do that.
    How many racists versus Malaysians who want to be free and respected by politicians?

  7. #7 by buy election on Saturday, 19 June 2010 - 2:12 am

    Tian Chua b’u’y election?

    Whenever there is a b’u’y election, the santa has to give out millions of ringgit. I don’t think Najib wants to have another one, especially if it is the strong hold of the Pakatan.

    My guess is the election commission will let Tian Chua go. Let’s wait and see the outcome


  8. #8 by boh-liao on Saturday, 19 June 2010 - 3:03 am

    Batu O Batu, jadi kosong soon
    Ha, ha, la la li tam pong – Which Gerakan candidate will b walking d plank, KTK or silly doc LKY’s son?
    Or, Gerakan deviously gives d seat 2 MIC ?
    I too want 2 b a Batu resident 2 receive bribes n ang pow fr NR n BNputras, can or not aahh

  9. #9 by boh-liao on Saturday, 19 June 2010 - 3:29 am

    Hey, NR bot a kitten yesterday n welcomes suggestions of names for the kitten
    Fun time lah, meow meow
    Creative Negarakuku Namewee, where r U?

  10. #10 by sightseeing on Saturday, 19 June 2010 - 4:03 am

    This judge has never been shoping before. The price tag of a $2000 item is always written as $1999.99. In this way, the seller gets the price he wants and the buyer can tell his wife that for less than $2000 he got a good deal for the item.

  11. #11 by yhsiew on Saturday, 19 June 2010 - 6:59 am

    It is a well-known fact that MPs fined not less than RM2,000 would have to vacate their parliamentary seat.

    The judge should have fined Tian Chua RM1,900 to save all arguments.

  12. #12 by SENGLANG on Saturday, 19 June 2010 - 9:24 am

    That the beauty of the layman language even the so call learned one could sure how to interpret not more or not less than.

    He may have the purest intention to assist BN to avoid a by election but why did bot he just fine for a sum of less the 2k? that was puzzling and may be only then human being have more works to do and the lawyers will not be too free.

    Any way by election is go for BAtu people as only during by election they will see instant development and fast service. but this time the Chinese may not be treated with special favour as BN may have learn the lesson during Ulu Selangor and Sibu fights

  13. #13 by sheriff singh on Saturday, 19 June 2010 - 10:41 am

    The judge in this case should have followed what the judge did in Joseph Pairin Kitingan’s case by making it absolutely clear his intentions.

  14. #14 by boh-liao on Saturday, 19 June 2010 - 11:44 am

    Degradation of English comprehension ability
    Intention and actual action (judgement) are not aligned but diametrical
    What 2 do, d look-alike, sound-alike pong pong pong guy was not around 2 help 2 write judgement, teruk nya

  15. #15 by albert308 on Saturday, 19 June 2010 - 12:01 pm

    Wishing YB LKS has good rest and recover well from sickness. Malaysia need your spiritual guidance for imminent change in the government from Umno’s dominance and tyranny.
    DAP must prevail in the new political landscape!

  16. #16 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Saturday, 19 June 2010 - 12:14 pm

    Hello Najib,

    72% approval rating, apa takut-lah. If u have no gall to allow for Batu buy-election, then u have no balls for GE. Period.

    Tun M is right – 72% approval , can call for GE tomorrow, Najib. U don’t hv Malaysians mandate to be PM. The Rakyat rejected Pak Lah; the people wud hv rejected u even more.

  17. #17 by katdog on Saturday, 19 June 2010 - 12:50 pm

    The judge either failed maths or english.

    The law says MP disqualified if fined not less than RM2000. In other words MP is disqualified is fined RM2000 or more.

    Judge thought that RM2000 is less than RM2000.

    Besides, this whole episode once again reveals the huge joke that is called Malaysian courts.

    What business is it for a judge to make judgments based on the purpose of ‘not burdening the rakyat with expensive by-election’?

    So meaning if an MP commits a crime such as bribery/theft/murder/fraud a Judge can opt to choose a lighter sentence (or even no sentence at all) for the purpose of ‘not burdening the rakyat with a by-election’?

    What kind of ridiculous reasoning is that? Penalties given out should be based on the seriousness of the crime committed NOT based on the economic needs of the state.

  18. #18 by frankyapp on Saturday, 19 June 2010 - 3:05 pm

    Well,Batu by election should be welcome in big celebration by the people as huge development “ang pau” will be presented by Najib and BN in their “buy election” agenda. Though the people here may lose Tian Chua,I’m pretty sure,PR will bring in a Tian Chua 2 to win back the lost seat. The way this judge and other judges playing games along with the BN, against the opposition members of parliament,pretty lots of people are not trusting the Umno/BN regime and should this by election is held,I think PR is going to win big. I think also the by election may not happen as Najib/BN know they have pretty slim chance to win despite their “buy election “agenda is in a well place position.

  19. #19 by monsterball on Saturday, 19 June 2010 - 7:58 pm

    I think UMNO B is too smart to think they can win a by-election with Tian Chua being disqualified.
    Watch those hypocrites fight for Tian Chua to stay on.
    Najib is too smart to witness another deal…fall flat in his face.

  20. #20 by boh-liao on Saturday, 19 June 2010 - 11:47 pm

    NR rating is very high now, highly confident of winning any election
    Loh Si Mah too thinks so, MMK too

  21. #21 by on cheng on Sunday, 20 June 2010 - 12:18 am

    why can the judge not make the fine to be RM2001 or RM1999, and avoid all waste time arguement???

  22. #22 by ReformMalaysia on Sunday, 20 June 2010 - 1:54 am

    RM2,000 in the year that the constitution was drawn more that half a century ago is equivalent to the present day RM20,000….

    Perhaps it is time to make some amendment/revision…

  23. #23 by pulau_sibu on Sunday, 20 June 2010 - 10:42 am

    decimal point is a new terminology in the course of law. The judge can set it as 1999.99

  24. #24 by good coolie on Sunday, 20 June 2010 - 11:29 am

    This Tien Chua is a good fellow, really. Now that he is in a position of responsibility he has abandoned the ways of the childish protester. He does not bite the PC; he bites the bullet.

    One more fellow I knew protested by lying on railway tracks (aca sahaja) in Johore Bahru: good sort of fellow (the late Razak, may he rest in peace); but he didn’t make it like Tien Chua.

    Malaysia needs the likes of Tien Chua, spirit of the alternative One-Malaysia.

  25. #25 by sheriff singh on Sunday, 20 June 2010 - 12:29 pm

    A RM 300+ million bite.

    Yes that’s what his bite is worth.

    RM 300+ million will be spent because he bit.

    Thank you Tian Chua.

  26. #26 by bra888 on Sunday, 20 June 2010 - 4:56 pm

    Dear LKS,

    I say that IF Tien Chua is guilty of the charges, he SHOULD pay the full amount if not DOUBLE the amount of what he’s suppose to pay the fine.

    Why I say so?

    First of all, I don’t see any reason as to why a person (with power and money) deserve to pay a cheaper fine as compared to what the law applies to ‘commoners’.

    The fine represents a test to see if he’ll uphold the law and be responsible for his actions.

    The opposition party should urge their leaders to be responsible with their actions and uphold the law even when the law is against them when they’ve failed to obey the law.

    As a matter of fact, IF he is guilty of the charges made towards him, I find it unacceptable to have a leader with such barbaric behavior.

    I don’t want to vote neither for the BN nor to a politician who believes that he/she is above the law, nor will I vote for those who believe that they deserve ‘lighter penalty sentences’ just because they have the power and status.

    As to why I believe he should pay DOUBLE the fine IF he’s guilty?

    I always believe that those with power and status, especially politicians, should be made an example to the people. Lawmakers who breaks laws and tries to get lighter sentences are just hypocrites.

  27. #27 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 20 June 2010 - 11:23 pm

    ///In delivering his judgment, Ghazali said: “A member of Parliament is the head of an area and should be a role model for the people.

    “In this case, the appellant is a MP and it cannot be denied that we can have no special treatment due to his position. But to have a by-election would require a large amount of spending and it would affect the people, so I have decided on a punishment that would not affect so many people,” Ghazali told a packed courtroom./// – Judgment of Judge Ghazali Cha as reported by Teoh El Sen in FreeMalaysiaToday on 17th June.

    If it is normal for judges to “increase” penalty or fine in certain circumstances where public interest requires a deterrent sentence, I see no reasdon by Judge Ghazali Cha could not for same reasons of public interest of avoiding a costly byelection arising from Tian Chua’s disqualification reduce his sentence from RM3000/- to RM2000/- fine.

    I agree with the judge that RM2000/- does not disqualify Tian Chua under article 48 of the Federal Constitution. I believe so does Bar Council Chairman president, Ragunath Kesavan, who said that in “his professional view”…” the phrase ‘not less than’ means the threshold amount that would automatically disqualify Chua would be higher than RM2,000/-” – (Source The MalaysianInsider report by Debra Chong and Yow Hong Chieh, June 17, 2010 under caption “poser over Tian Chua’s status as MP”.

    However renowned lawyer Karpal Singh and Dr Shad Saleem of Universiti Teknologi Mara take the other view – that RM2000/- is caught by the disqualification, a view supported by the 1975 legal precedent case of Fan Yew Teng who was fined for RM2000/- and held by Justice Chang Min Tat to have been disqualified as MP.

    My personal view is that Justice Chang Min Tat’s decision in 1975 Fan Yew Teng case is wrongly decided.

    Though it is law (based on precedent) it can be overruled on appeal to higher apex court for proper interpretation.

  28. #28 by Jeffrey on Monday, 21 June 2010 - 6:48 am

    If “less” than RM2000 means RM1999-99, then “NOT” less than RM2000 is legal jargon for (indirectly) saying at least RM2000, inclusive of it.

  29. #29 by Kenzo on Monday, 21 June 2010 - 12:14 pm

    [I posted this on MKini & TMI but no response]

    This RM2000 fine by the judge, while saying that he does not want a by-election is a very smart tactic by Barisan Nasional.

    They know that they will probably lose if there is a by-election in Batu. They also know that they will probably lose this seat again in General Election 13. Therefore they came out with this “unusual” ruling, voiding a by-election for now and yet putting Tian Chua in an “unqualified to stand” status for GE13. They are hoping that PKR will make the mistake of fielding Tian Chua as their candidate and therefore BN will win without contest when he is disqualified during the nomination objection period.

    Good try, BN, although I believe PR is wiser than to fall for this trick. Although, BN could then be hoping for in-fighting in PKR Batu for the right to run as an MP in GE13, now that Tian Chua is ineligible.

  30. #30 by Jeffrey on Monday, 21 June 2010 - 2:23 pm

    “A judge in the Kuala Lumpur High Court has decided that there is no need for him to review his ruling to impose a reduced fine of RM2,000 on Batu MP Tian Chua.”

    “According to Chua’s lawyer Ranjit Singh, the judge maintained that his intention is clear – that he does not want a by-election to be called for the Batu parliamentary seat in Kuala Lumpur.

    Ranjit also said the judge is aware of the Supreme Court decision in PP vs Leong Ying Ming (1993) drug case, in the context of defining a fine of ‘not less than RM2,000’.

    (In the case, Supreme Court judge Justice Gunn Chit Tuan had ruled that the phrase ‘not less than five years’ would mean at least five years and one day).

    “We maintain the Leong Ying Ming decision is correct and the judge feels the same way,” he said. Ranjit said Chua’s status as MP is ‘solid’, as the name Batu suggests
    Chua told reporters this morning that he is still Batu MP.

    Met in the Parliament lobby later, Chua maintained his innocence and said the interpretation of ‘not less than RM2,000′ would mean that the amount must be higher than RM2,000.

    “If anyone is not satisfied, they can challenge the decision,” he told journalists.

    He was also asked to comment on the case of PP vs Fan Yew Teng.“He was unfairly, unjustifiably removed by the speaker. It was illegal. So I do not think any illegal or unjustifiable case should be used as a reference,” Chua said.

    [Reference: Malaysiakini report by Hafiz Yatim & Christine Chan | Jun 21, 10 9:20 am under Caption ‘ Tian Chua case: Judge will not review ruling ‘.

    Chua’s position is correct. For the life of me I can’t understand why people keep harping on a 1975 case of Fan Yew Teng (wrongly decided) instead of relying on a more recent case of Leong Ying Ming decided by Gunn Chit Tuan.

    Chua himself is not keen on na by election. Are some people in Pakatan Rakyat that keen to keep on saying Tian Chua is disqualified?

  31. #31 by Bigjoe on Monday, 21 June 2010 - 3:25 pm

    I keep thinking of the poor judge. If Rosmah is the one he is dealing with, he must going ‘matilah..’. Its quite apparent he took instruction verbatim instead of giving it deliberation he is suppose to. So he basically going – Si gemuk yang beri instruction. You orang beri command take ada check punya?

    P. Ramlee could not have written the scene better..

  32. #32 by OrangRojak on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 - 2:12 am


    There is one result which cannot be obtained by the addition of any amount of wrong.

  33. #33 by ekompute on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 - 1:25 pm

    Jeffrey says: “6. Karpal Singh, who defended Fan Yew Teng, knew about the case and thats why until that 1975 case weres overruled it is still law which explains why Karpal opines (based on Fan Yew Teng’s precedent) Tian Chua would be disqualified.”

    Well, I suppose the RM2,000 fine is a border case and can either mean disqualified or not disqualified, depending on the government, LMFAO.

  34. #34 by lextcs on Friday, 25 June 2010 - 3:13 pm

    1 minute plead guilty 1 minute pay fine 1 minute says no appeal 1 minute appeal 1 minute minta ampun…sounds like football betting tote running…

You must be logged in to post a comment.