Why Sivakumar is still the Speaker – Tommy Thomas

From The Malaysian Insider

MAY 19 – I am asked to advise V. Sivakumar, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Perak, on the constitutionality of his purported removal on May 7, 2009.

1. It is common ground that the Legislative Assembly was summoned that day by His Royal Highness, the Sultan of Perak (“HRH”) pursuant to Article 36(1) of the Constitution of Perak.

It is also not in dispute that the meeting on May 7, 2009 was the First Sitting of the Second Session of the 12th Legislative Assembly of Perak, marking the commencement of the 2nd session of a five-year Parliamentary term.

A. FACTS

2. Sivakumar’s alleged removal must be seen in the context of the extraordinary events that took place on the floor of the Assembly on May 7 2009. As to what occurred, I have relied on the live coverage of the events as reported in Malaysiakini, and the Chronology of Events published in the May 8 issue of the Sun newspaper. Hopefully, a combined reading of these 2 contemporary accounts would present an accurate summary of the facts. The time-line, as I understand it, is set out in Appendix A hereto.

3. From the facts narrated in Appendix A, it is clear that:-

(i) Sivakumar took the Speaker’s chair, Pakatan occupied the government bench (that is, on the right of the Speaker) and BN sat on the opposition bench (that is, on the left of the Speaker) when the Assembly was ready to start proceedings at about 10.00am on May 7;

(ii) The Speaker ordered 10 assemblymen to leave the Assembly;

(iii) The said 10 Assemblymen refused to leave;

(iv) The Speaker therefore did not start the meeting;

(v) The Speaker was forcibly removed from his chair;

(vi) Ganesan purported to act as replacement Speaker, purportedly after being elected;

(vii) Some five hours after the scheduled hour, and after the Speaker’s forced removal, the Raja Muda of Perak (“RM”) delivered the royal address;

(viii) Ganesan thereafter adjourned the sitting sine die; and

(ix) The Assembly has not sat since that adjournment.

4. On these facts, the critical issue in law is: when was this session of the Assembly opened? In other words, when was the Assembly in a position to transact business and take legally binding decisions?

B. WHEN DID THE SESSION OPEN?

5. As stated in Paragraph 1 above, the May 7 sitting was summoned by HRH under Article 36(1). It was the 1st Sitting of the 2nd Session of the 12th Legislative Assembly. In such circumstances, when did the Sitting begin?

Prima facie, two Standing Orders (“SO”) may be of indirect assistance. The Standing Orders were enacted in 1998 by the Legislative Assembly of Perak pursuant to Article 44(1) of the Perak State Constitution. They have the force of law.

First, SO 1, which deals with the proceedings of the first meeting of the Assembly after a State Election, reads: “On the first day of the meeting of the Assembly after a State General Election, members having assembled at the time and place duly appointed and being seated in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 2, the Secretary of the Assembly shall read the Proclamation of His Highness Paduka Seri Sultan Perak Darul Ridzuan by which the meeting was summoned, and thereafter the order of business on such day shall be….”

SO 1 contemplates HRH not gracing the 1st sitting of the 1st Session. If HRH however attends, then HRH reads the Proclamation and gives a royal address. Only thereafter is the order of business for the day. However, SO 1 has no application to the sitting on May 7 2009 because it was NOT the first sitting after the General Elections.

6. Secondly, SO 13, which relates to the order of business on ordinary sitting days, reads: “Order of Business … “13(1) Unless the Assembly otherwise directs, the business of each sitting shall be transacted in the following order:-

(a) Formal entry of Mr Speaker;

(b) Prayers;

(c) Taking of oath by any new member;

(d) Messages from HRH;

(e) Announcement by Mr Speaker

(f) Petitions;

(g) to (p) – specific matters which are not relevant for present purposes.

(2) The Assembly may, upon a motion to be moved by the Menteri Besar or in his absence a member of the State Executive Council to be decided without amendment or debate which may be made without notice and shall take precedence over all other business, decide to proceed to any particular business out of the regular order.

The sitting on May 7 2009 was not an ordinary sitting. It was the 1st sitting of the 2nd Session, summoned under Article 36(1) of the Perak Constitution, and was graced by the RM, representing HRH. In consequence, neither SO is, on close scrutiny, applicable to the May 7 sitting.

In any event, any direction on the order of business made under SO 13(1) or (2) can only be by an Assembly that had lawfully opened for business.

7. Accordingly, in my opinion there is no express SO that deals with the May 7 sitting. In such event, reliance can be placed on SO 90 which allows Commonwealth Parliamentary practice and usage to be used as guidance on issues where the SO’s are silent.

Thus, it is proper to consider the practice of the British Parliament. Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament is the authoritative and leading text on Parliamentary procedure in the Commonwealth. The learned authors of the 23rd Edition (2004) state: “In every session but the first of a Parliament, as there is no election of a Speaker, nor any general swearing of members, the session is opened at once by the Queen’s speech, without any preliminary proceedings in either House. Until the causes of summons are declared by the Queen, either in person, or by commission, neither House can proceed with any public business…….. …….This practice is observed because no business can be transacted until Parliament has been opened by the Crown” (my emphasis)

8. The learned commentators of Halsbury’s Laws of England state: “(v) Proceedings at the Opening of Parliament … 713 The Queen’s Speech

Neither House of Parliament can proceed with any public business until the session has been opened either by the monarch in person or by Lords Commissioners acting on her behalf. On this occasion the causes for the summoning of Parliament are communicated to the two Houses in the Queen’s Speech,…. In the first session of a new Parliament the Speech is not delivered until a Speaker of the House of Commons has been elected and an opportunity has been given to members of both Houses to take the oath. In each subsequent session there are no such preliminary proceedings and the Speech is delivered on the first day….” (my emphasis)

“717 Proceedings in the House of Commons after the opening of Parliament

After the opening of Parliament, the House of Commons resumes its sitting at 2.30pm. Various sessional orders are made …; certain other business may also be transacted….”

9. Finally, Griffith and Ryle on Parliament : Functions, Practice & Procedures.” (2nd Ed. 2003) takes the same position:- “The Speech having been read, the Queen and her courtiers depart; the Commons return to their Chamber and the Lords remain in theirs. Both Houses area now free to proceed with the work of the session, because no business can be transacted until Parliament has been opened by the Crown”. (my emphasis)

10. Accordingly, in law, the first session of any Legislative Assembly of Perak summoned under Article 36(1) cannot transact any business or pass any resolution prior to the royal address, which on May 7 2009, was only delivered between 3.16 pm and 3.47 pm. Thus, any purported resolutions or decisions taken before the royal address are null and void and of no legal effect.

The importance in law of the commencement of a parliamentary sitting reflects the practice of any meeting of any body or organisation, whether a company, society, union or club. Even in such bodies, until the Chairman of the meeting calls it to order, the meeting cannot transact any business. Any purported business transacted before the chair begins a meeting are of no legal effect.

The law of meeting reflects common sense. It is, therefore, not surprising that Parliamentary practice and usage is also similar.

11. It is not in factual dispute that the purported resolution to remove Sivakumar as Speaker was purportedly passed at about 10.30am on May 7, 2009, well before the royal address. The legal power to remove the Speaker is found in Article 36A(2)(d) of the Perak State Constitution.

The purported resolution to remove Sivakumar presented by BN assemblymen therefore had to be submitted under Article 36A(2), which states that the Speaker shall vacate his office – “(d) if the Assembly at any time so resolves.” It is a condition precedent for an Assembly to pass a resolution under Article 36A(2)(d) that that Assembly must have been “opened” and was in a legal position to transact business, including deliberating and passing such a resolution.

In other words, the House must be sitting legally. Because the Assembly was not “opened” at 10.30am on May 7 2009, the Assembly could not under the Constitution pass the resolution pursuant to Article 36(2)(d).

In consequence, Speaker Sivakumar was not lawfully removed on May 7 2009, and continues, under the Constitution and in law, to be the sole, lawful Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Perak.

BN-Polis Pakat Buat Kecoh Sidang DUN Perak 7 Mei?

Aliran meletakkan punca kekecohan semasa sidang Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak 7 Mei ke atas bahu Barisan Nasional kerana perbuatannya menyeludup masuk bekas Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri, R. Ganesan, untuk dilantik sebagai Speaker secara tidak sah.

Dalam kenyataannya yang dikeluarkan semalam, presiden Aliran, P. Ramakrishnan berkata Ganesan tidak berhak untuk hadir pada sidang tersebut dan kehadiran beliau telah mencetuskan ketegangan dalam Dewan.

Aliran juga menyelar pihak polis yang gagal menjalankan tugas mereka dengan baik sehingga membenarkan individu seperti Ganesan memasuki sidang DUN.

Beliau mengajukan persoalan sama ada drama yang berlaku pada hari tersebut adalah hasil kerjasama rahsia antara BN dan polis.

Berikut kenyataan penuh Aliran:

The claim by self-proclaimed Speaker of the Perak State Assembly, R Ganesan, that he had no choice but to summon the police into the House at the height of the ruckus during the May 7 sitting, is dubious and deceiving (Sunday Star 17 May 2009). There is no merit in his claim.

In the first instance, his entry into and his very presence in the Assembly is questionable. How on earth did Ganesan get into the Assembly? The Assembly building was out of bounds to all except the elected members of the Assembly.

There was a police cordon to prevent all the others from entering the Assembly. A 500 metre no-access zone was declared and anyone found anywhere near this perimeter were either chased away or were arrested when they resisted the police orders.

Even Perak Members of Parliament were denied access to the Assembly. Veteran MP Lim Kit Siang was refused entry into the building in spite of the fact that he had come with the invitation letter from the Speaker to attend the Assembly sitting.

Likewise, Kulasegaran and Dr Jeyakumar, both elected MPs from Perak were turned away. That’s how strict the police were. They stringently enforced this ruling of refusing permission to all and sundry.

Smuggled in?

So the natural question is: How did Ganesan gain entry into the building. Who authorized his presence in the Perak State Assembly? How did he by-pass the police security arrangement? How did he hood-wink the police? How come the police did not detect him? Was he smuggled in? Was he planted in the building the previous day?

Is it possible that the police were working hand in glove with illegitimate MB Zambry and BN Assemblymen and facilitated Ganesan’s presence in the building?

Ganesan had no business to be inside the Assembly.  One can safely conclude that his appearance and continued presence in the Assembly prompted and provoked a situation which went beyond control.

Secondly, contrary to his claim that he had no choice but to call in the police, if indeed he was the Speaker of the Assembly as he claims, he could have adjourned the Assembly sitting, following which he and his cohorts could have left the Assembly.

This simple action would have prevented the Assembly from becoming chaotic and unruly. Since he did not do this, it can be rightly construed that he had contributed to the topsy-turvy situation.

The illegitimate MB and the Barisan Nasional Assemblypersons by smuggling in Ganesan had incited the unruly behaviour.

Illegally Elected?

Thirdly, the way Ganeson was ‘elected’ Speaker was also questionable. According to Speaker V Sivakumar, the Assembly had not been convened. In other words, the Assembly was not in session.

Sivakumar had stated that he would not convene the Assembly as long as those ordered out of the House were still inside. That was his stated position. That being the case, how was Ganesan elected when the Assembly was not in session?

Can a group of BN Assemblymen get together privately in one corner of the Assembly building when the Speaker was still occupying his chair and elect someone else? We have a situation when an outsider appears mysteriously in the building and he was elected Speaker when the Assembly had not officially convened.

This was not the only absurd situation we had on 7 May. On that day, we also seemed to have had two Speakers and two Menteris Besar at the same time in the same building!

The Standing Orders of the Assembly were thrown to the winds and the proper procedures that had to be followed were totally ignored. And that was the reason why things turned ugly, unruly and chaotic on May 7.

A BN-Police conspiracy?

Ganesan further contributed to the chaos by ordering the police to forcibly evict Sivakumar from the Assembly. What were the police doing inside the Assembly? Ganesan did not send someone to invite the police to do his bidding. They were already there waiting for his orders. Isn’t that very strange!

By calling on the police to drag out the duly elected Speaker from the Assembly, Ganesan had defiled and desecrated the sanctity of the Assembly. It is an unforgivable sin that he had committed that must be roundly condemned. We should never introduce thuggish behaviour into the legislative assembly where the rule of law should have been paramount and should have prevailed at all times.

What transpired as a result of Ganesan’s conduct raises many serious questions. Why did the police obey him? How did they know he was the new speaker? Was there an announcement that Sivakumar was ousted?

Or was this part of a pre-prepared and pre-rehearsed script? The way things fell into place would indicate that there was a scheme to capture the Perak state government, if necessary, by force. The plot was hatched studiously and implemented without a care for the rule of law.

This is a dangerous precedent and it should not be tolerated. It must be condemned in the strongest terms. There must be retribution for this outrageous behaviour.

Perakians will remember this shameful episode in their proud history and they will punish all those who frustrated the democratic will of the people.  
 

Nizar Mohon 5 Hakim Dengar Kesnya

Menteri Besar Perak, Datuk Seri Ir Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin hari ini mengemukakan permohonan bagi mendapatkan panel lima hakim Mahkamah Rayuan untuk mendengar permohonannya mengetepikan keputusan mahkamah itu minggu lepas yang membenarkan penangguhan pengisytiharan Mahkamah Tinggi bahawa beliau adalah Menteri Besar Perak yang sah.

Peguam Leong Cheok Keng, yang mewakili Mohammad Nizar, ketika dihubungi berkata, surat permohonan itu telah dihantar melalui faks ke pejabat Timbalan Pendaftar Mahkamah Rayuan di sini, pada pukul 4 petang tadi.

Alasan permohonan itu ialah kerana kes tersebut, yang ditetapkan pendengarannya Khamis ini, membabitkan kepentingan awam, selain melibatkan isu dan persoalan perlembagaan, katanya.

Pada 11 Mei, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Datuk Abdul Aziz Ab Rahim mengisytiharkan Mohammad Nizar sebagai Menteri Besar Perak yang sah kerana mendapati Mohammad Nizar tidak pernah mengosongkan jawatan sebagai Menteri Besar kerana beliau tidak kehilangan kepercayaan majoriti anggota Dewan Undangan Negeri.

Berikutan keputusan itu, Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir mengemukakan permohonan penangguhan pelaksanaan pengisytiharan itu yang telah didengar dan dibenarkan Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan Datuk Ramly Ali.

Mohammad Nizar kemudian memfailkan permohonan Rabu lalu untuk mengetepikan keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan itu. - BERNAMA

Mahkamah Tinggi putuskan Sultan tidak boleh pecat Menteri Besar

KUALA LUMPUR: Sultan Perak Sultan Azlan Shah tidak boleh memecat Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin dari jawatannya kerana beliau (Menteri Besar) tidak memegang jawatan itu atas perkenan baginda.

Ini keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim bila beliau mengisytiharkan Mohammad Nizar sebagai Menteri Besar Perak yang sah pada 11 Mei.

Dalam penghakiman 78 muka yang dikeluarkan kepada media semalam, Abdul Aziz berkata sebaik saja Menteri Besar dilantik, beliau dan majlis exconya bertanggungjawab kepada Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) dan tiada siapa lain.

Beliau berkata ini menurut fasal (2), (5), (6) dan (7) Artikel 16 Undang-undang Tubuh Negeri Perak.

"Sebaik saja menteri besar dilantik, menteri besar mentadbir negeri menerusi Majlis Eksekutif dan menasihatkan Sultan mengenai hal ehwal negeri sebagaimana diperuntukkan di bawah Artikel 18 (1) Undang-undang Tubuh Negeri Perak.

Hakim Abdul Aziz berkata Sultan bertindak atas nasihat kecuali dalam perkara di mana Undang-undang Tubuh Negeri Perak memperuntukkan bahawa Baginda boleh bertindak atas budibicara baginda semata-mata.

Beliau berkata berdasarkan peruntukan dalam Artikel 16, ia mensyaratkan bahawa dewan undangan adalah pihak yang menentukan sama ada ia menaruh keyakinan terhadap Menteri Besar selaku ketua majlis eksekutif menerusi undi tidak percaya terhadap Menteri Besar.

"Saya berpendapat bahawa pemecatan Menteri Besar oleh Baginda atau oleh sesiapa lain tidak sekali-kali dipertimbangkan di bawah Artikel 16 (6) Undang-undang Tubuh Negeri Perak," kata beliau.

Beliau berkata fasal 7 Artikel 16 undang-undang tubuh itu memperuntukkan bahawa kecuali Menteri Besar, anggota-anggota lain Majlis Eksekutif memegang jawatan atas perkenan Sultan dan mereka (anggota eksekutif) boleh dipecat dari jawatan oleh Sultan yang bertindak atas nasihat Menteri Besar.

Abdul Aziz berkata Sultan Perak telah menemui dan menginterbiu tiga anggota dewan negeri yang menjadi anggota bebas dan seorang lagi anggota dewan yang sebelumnya keluar dari Barisan Nasional (BN) tetapi kemudian menyertai semula parti itu dan mereka memberitahu Sultan tentang sokongan mereka kepada BN secara sukarela tanpa dipaksa oleh mana-mana pihak.

Abdul Aziz, bagaimanapun berkata, walaupun menerusi pertanyaan Sultan, Baginda berpendapat Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir mendapat sokongan majoriti anggota DUN, ini tidak bermakna Baginda boleh membuat keputusan bahawa Mohammad Nizar tidak lagi mendapat keyakinan majoriti dewan berkenaan.

Beliau berkata pendapat peribadi atau keputusan Sultan tidak relevan kepada maksud Artikel 16 (6) yang memperuntukkan bahawa "jika Menteri Besar tidak lagi mendapat keyakinan majoriti anggota dewan undangan, maka, kecuali atas permintaannya, Baginda membubarkan dewan, beliau dikehendaki mengemukakan peletakan jawatan majlis eksekutif".

Abdul Aziz mendengar prosiding semakan kehakiman yang dibawa oleh Mohammad Nizar, 52, memohon writ "quo warranto" dikeluarkan terhadap Zambry untuk memberi sebab atas asas apa atau kuasa apa beliau adalah menteri besar yang sah.

Abdul Aziz kemudian mengisytiharkan Mohammad Nizar sebagai Menteri Besar yang sah selepas memutuskan bahawa beliau (Nizar) tidak pernah melepaskan jawatan menteri besar oleh kerana beliau tidak kehilangan keyakinan majoriti dewan undangan negeri.

Mohammad Nizar, dilantik sebagai Menteri Besar pada 17 Mac tahun lepas selepas pakatan DAP-PKR-PAS memenangi 31 kerusi dalam plihan raya umum ke 12.

Kedua-dua pihak, bagaimanapun, mempunyai 28 kerusi masing-masing, selepas tiga anggota dewan dari pakatan itu keluar parti untuk menjadi anggota bebas dan yang keempat melompat semula dari PKR kepada Umno.

Sultan kemudian meminta Mohammad Nizar meletak jawatan menteri besar dan Zambry mengangkat sumpah selepas mengisytiharkan bahawa Barisan Nasional mempunyai majoriti di dewan undangan negeri.

Mahkamah Rayuan, pada 12 Mei, membenarkan perintah penangguhan keputusan itu kepada Zambry dan menetapkan Khamis ini untuk mendengar bersama permohonan Mohammad Nizar mengetepikan perintah penangguhan.

Dalam penghakimannya, Hakim Abdul Aziz juga berkata beliau tidak meragui bahawa Sultan mempunyai budi bicara mutlak berhubung pelantikan Menteri Besar dan tidak memperkenan permintaan bagi pembubaran DUN.

"Saya tidak pernah meragui tentang pelaksanaan prerogatif diraja untuk melantik seorang Menteri Besar mengikut Artikel 16 (2) Undang-undang Tubuh Negeri Perak semata-mata berdasarkan pendapat peribadi Baginda.

"Dan bahawa Baginda boleh memilih apa carapun bagi memuaskan hati dan membuat keputusan sewajarnya tentang siapa yang mendapat keyakinan majoriti DUN hingga beliau boleh dilantik sebagai menteri besar untuk memimpin majlis eksekutif," katanya.

Abdul Aziz bagaimanapun berkata perkara yang sama tidak boleh dilakukan berhubung Artikel 16 (6) dalam memutuskan sama ada Menteri Besar tidak lagi mendapat keyakinan majoriti anggota dewan undangan. BERNAMA

Anwar: Umno mungkin taja calon bebas di Penanti

Ketua Pembangkang, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim berkata, Umno tidak bertanding di Penanti kerana parti itu tidak sedia bertarung dan menyerahkan kuasa kepada rakyat untuk membuat pilihan.

Beliau yang juga ketua umum PKR berkata, alasan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak adalah tidak munasabah kerana ini pertama kali Umno tidak bertanding apabila ada kekosongan kerusi.

"Dalam apa jua alasan, jika ada kekosongan Pakatan Rakyat menyerahkan kepada kebijaksanaan dan keputusan rakyat.

"Hujah ini satu helah kerana Umno selalu tabik dada (mengaku) kuat dan relevan," katanya kepada wartawan selepas ceramah di Taman Medan Petaling Jaya malam tadi, sempena pelancaran kempen penerangan "Krisis Perak: Kembali Pada Rakyat".

Semalam, Dewan Tertinggi BN memutuskan tidak akan bertanding dalam pilihanraya kecil Penanti. Perdana menteri memberi tiga sebab BN menolak bertanding kerusi tersebut.

Pertama, kekosongan kerusi itu bukan diperuntukkan oleh perlembagaan tetapi satu usaha PKR untuk menyelesaikan masalah dalamannya.

Kedua, pilihanraya kecil ini satu permainan politik pembangkang.

Ketiga, BN lebih mengutamakan khidmat kepada rakyat dan langkah memulihkan ekonomi negara.

Najib juga menafikan BN takut tewas di kerusi tersebut.

Ceramah dapat permit

Mengulas lanjut, Anwar bagaimanapun berkata, Pakatan menghadapi kemungkinan Umno akan menaja calon bebas di Penanti.

"Itu belum pasti, bagaimanapun Pakatan akan terus bekerja untuk menghadapi pilihanraya tersebut," katanya.

Sementara itu ketika berucap di majlis tersebut, Anwar mengulangi pendirian Pakatan yang mahukan DUN Perak dibubarkan dan menyerahkan kepada rakyat untuk membuat keputusan.

Katanya, Pakatan menghormati Istana tetapi yang membuat keputusan bukan Istana, bukan hakim tetapi rakyat.

"Di Perak kita yakin akan menang lebih besar kerana (rakyat) mahukan perubahan," katanya.

Selain Anwar, beberapa pemimpin Pakatan turut berucap di majlis tersebut.

Kira-kira 5,000 orang membanjiri kawasan lapang di Taman Medan untuk mendengar ceramah mengenai krisis politik di Perak.

Ceramah tersebut mendapat permit polis.