///Rasah MP Anthony Loke said that the implications of this are huge and the consequences dire for Pakatan. “Maybe this opportunity will be used by BN to amend the Federal Constitution or re-draw the electoral boundaries”///

That’s one thing.

The other is that if the PM dissolves Parliament and calls for an election within the 6 months period of suspension can Anwar, Karpal & Sivarasa (under our parlaimentary rules) stand for election or be elected to Parliament during this period of suspension?

I don’t know why Anwar bring up this issue of Apco Worldwide being linked to the Zionist regime, and 1 Malaysia to 1 Israel in the first place that only serves to provide the opportunity and excuse for the other side to come down hard on PR’s leaders, with all the hidden agendas. That is a nonsensical issue that only served more to embarrass him and require him to subsequently explain and do damage control to his friends, patrons and American supporters abroad.

The BN took the action (against Anwar) and wanted their pound of flesh because they were very unhappy with Anwar raising this issue of Apco Worldwide being linked to the Zionist regime, and 1 Malaysia to 1 Israel.

The BN justified the disciplinary action and suspension on grounds that there was no truth in what Anwar said. It is questionable whether Anwar himself was interested in and had checked thoroughly the truth of what he said. When politicians here accuse each other the primary goal of the accusations and counter accusations is — with some exceptions — seldom to uphold or expose the truth when the issue of the day touches on race and religion. Rather, in the case of Anwar versus UMNO on the Apco 1 Malaysia/ 1 Israel issue, it is their goal to each position themselves as champion of the Malay/Muslim audience.

That the leader of our Opposition front espousing inclusiveness should choose a religiously nuanced issue like Apco 1 Malaysia/ 1 Israel connection to undermine the ruling party is grounded on the tit-for-tat justification that the opposite side is doing no less the same thing.

The latest according to TheMalaysianInsider report Dec 15 : in a forum promoted by Utusan Malaysia, Fed Govt’s main religious think tank Ikim slam says that not all religions are equal and Umno-linked scholars attacked Anwar for promoting religious pluralism in his advocacy of Ketuanan Rakyat and rejection of Ketuanan Melayu. How could this position put forth by participants of the forum be consistent or reconcilable with the PM’s platform of “1 Malaysia”??? And yet in spite of what the PM advocated to the international stage – the call for a “Global Movement of the Moderates” to counterbalance the negative effects of extremism”, in our own backyard no one as yet from the Ruling Coalition would count to “speak up” (as Aliran’s P Ramakrishnan urged in earlier thread) to stand up to contradict or repudiate this position.

What is noteworthy is that when the leader of opposition himself earlier played the religiously nuanced card of linking Apco to Jews and 1 Malaysia to 1 Israel, also nobody from civil society/opposition side that stood up to repudiate and contradict what Anwar said!

It must not be forgotten that Anwar himself (whilst he was part of UMNO and then supportive of TDM, was instrumental in a major way in advancing TDM’s aggressive Islamisation of this country over 22 years that has strengthened and expanded the Religious Establishment here).

Continuing: If I were an impartial judge upholding the Rule of Law & Cause o Democracy and of course Rakyat’s interest I would balance the power of the legislative chambers of Parliament/State Assembly as against the Courts in this way :-

(1) The Judiciary/Courts do accept the supremacy of Parliament/State Assemblies in making laws. The Courts will not review that “supremacy” in the sense of questioning whether the laws made were well thought out or debated before they were passed; that Courts will, when interpreting laws, uphold the intent of Parliament/State Assemblies in passing such laws. The Courts will even respect the decisions of Parliamentary Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia or, for that matter, that of Perak State Assembly Speaker (never mind whether its PR’s one in the case of V Sivakumar or the BN’s one Zambry Abdul Kadir when it concerns how each Speaker, by interpreting and enforcing standing orders, maintains the necessary order, decorum and civility with which it is necessary to debate and decide on law making and passing of legislations, which is the paramount function of any legislative body.

(2) But a line has to be drawn somewhere. Whilst Parliament or a State Assembly guided by the Speaker could make any law it wants in the name of sovereignty and supremacy of legislature – of which courts cannot question – the judiciary/courts have a right to interfere and question when that Parliament or State Assembly crosses the line to now play and usurp the role of a court on matters of procedures to discipline, suspend and revoke privileges of the member of Parliament or a State Assembly from discharging his responsibilities as wakil rakyat!

As much as there is sovereignty and supremacy of Legislature (Parliament or State Assembly) to make laws there is also sovereignty and supremacy of Judiciary / Courts to uphold Justice and fair play. Separation of Powers implies balance of power between Executive, Legislature & Judiciary each being sovereign in their respective roles but does not mean that one can transgress to the other’s territory (in this case the Legislature to the Judiciary) and tell the latter to hands off and fly kites!

On the basis of the above I would say that the correct position is –

Whether dealing with Executive or Legislature, if suspension or punishment of anyone is unfair or unjust by reason of the Parliamentary or state assemblies’ procedures not being followed and more importantly the Rule of Natural Justice not being followed, etc, then courts can always “question” ie Judicial Review is necessary in order to safeguard against abuse of power by an all important Executive or a Legislative Assembly dominated by majority ruling coalition and parties! Courts/Judges are respecters of no person just because one is high and the other low or one from ruling party the other, from the opposition. If they are silent when legislative majority oppress the minority in Legislature or the Executive bullies the subjects/rakyat, then judges have become derelict in their high judicial roles to mete Justice. They may as well discard their robes and join politics!

Correction of typo omissions in last para of preceding post –

“Suffice to say I think the true position is that AS stated by Nazri in Sivakumar vs Zambry…”

and

“… It is not what he says now that the law is settled that Courts cannot interfere when the Speaker is a BN’s one and NOT PR’s!…”

It’s a simple equation.

Look at the equation this way. We’ve got a parliamentary select disciplinary committee (majority – BN).

It decided to judge Anwar wrong for raising the APCO/Isreal 1 Malaysia/1 Israel issue.

It heard only one side of the story – APCO’s. But it didn’t afford Anwar the right to reply/defend.

Whether Anwar were flippant and contemptuous of parliament should be decided by committee only after hearing both sides, the accuser and the one accused in accordance with Rules of Natural Justice.

If the majority of committee didn’t do that and recommended suspension of Anwar, then its wrong.

If Karpal & Sivarasa walked out, it was because the committee by majority proceeded the wrong course in coming to such a decision.

Now Karpal & Sivarasa are both accused of contravening confidentiality of committee’s proceedings and also suspended and along with Azmin who supported them against Speaker.

But one has to ask if Karpal & Sivarasa had not broken confidentiality of these breach of natural justice, then confidentiality of such committee per standing orders would be used to protect the majority committee’s wrong course and decision to suspend Anwar without affording him fundamental right to defend. When such a committee recommends its decision to Parliament, then majority again will endorse it.

This is tantamount to brute majority at committee level and then at Parliament has been used to support a course of action leading to wrongful suspension of Anwar due to breach of the principles of Natural Justice and also punishmnt of whistlblowers like Karpal/Sivarasa who whistle blew to prevent Parlaiment from taking the wrong course!

It is disingenious to argue that Supremacy or Sovereignty of Parliament triumphs over all including its or its committee’s wrong actions.

Surely Courts can intervene. Courts cannot question Parliament or its select committees on its law making and enforcement of standing orders (house rules) – yes. But if Parliament or its committees for examples, don’t follow its own procedures and standing orders, if a member were disproportionately punished with unreasonable suspension of (say) 3 years without being accorded fundamental right to receive notice what exactly he has done wrong and to reply and defend against his accusers as guaranteed by our Constitution, does it mean under the excuse of Parliamentary Supremacy/sovereignty, one can ask Courts to back off when one is usurping its quasi judicial function of punishing a member?

To argue so is to impute to the courts a kind of impotence to do justice and also by on stroke unfairly accusing Parliament, which is supposedly the citadel of freedom and democracy, of being prepared to perpetrate unjust actions under the pretext of Supremacy or Sovereignty of Parliament.

It arises from a lack of understanding regarding that term means in the wider context of the doctrine of Separation of Powers.