Hanya Tuanku dan Raja Raja di tanah air kami mampu dan sentiasa sedia untuk mempertahankan ketuanan Melayu
UMNO Breathes Its Own Exhaust
Written by Jo Lint
Asia Sentinel
Thursday, 05 March 2009
Mahathir Mohamad, when he was Prime Minister was instrumental in clipping the powers and removing the immunity of the Malay rulers between 1983 and 1993 and making them liable to prosecution. Mahathir, when putting forward his case to the people of Malaysia on the need for such a drastic course of action against the rulers, singled out the allegedly extravagant lifestyles of royalty. The rulers of the states of Perak and Johor were singled out for mention.
UMNO including the Youth Wing were staunchly behind Mahathir and there was no talk of insulting the rulers, sedition or treason.When the withdrawal of immunity of the Sultans and curtailing their powers was discussed and passed by both the Houses of the Parliament, it is significant to note that the Democratic Action Party, of which Karpal Singh, is the national chairman, voted against the act. It was passed with the overwhelming support of UMNO and other components of the Barisan Nasional, the ruling national ethnic coalition.
Source: BeritaMalaysia
**************************************************
Umno's 1993 blitzkrieg against the sultans
K Pragalath | Mar 6, 09 10:05am /Malaysiakini
Quotable quotes from Umno leaders:
"The leaders have warned the rulers many times about ethics and told them that they could not continue doing certain things. It is not necessary to talk further.
We have talked with the rulers many times before and it is now time for action." – Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz, Umno Youth deputy and senator in New Straits Times, Dec 29, 1992.
"If rulers interfere in politics and it is proven, we want the Parliament to declare the election is illegal and cancelled.
"In business, if rulers’ involvement is proven, we should assume the business is illegal." – Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz, Umno executive council member in Utusan Malaysia, Dec 3, 1990.
"I would like to ask, how insulted do you feel when the Sultan of Kelantan does not invite our menteri besar to give a speech on behalf of the people each time His Majesty celebrates his coronation day whereas the people had chosen the menteri besar through their rights." - Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz, Umno Youth exco in Utusan Malaysia, Nov, 30, 1990.
"A ruler will enjoy the respect of his people even without the immunity but with the conduct that is appropriate with his office.
"Though the issue is a bitter pill to swallow, our rulers must accept the fact that immunity is not God given." – Muhyiddin Yassin, Johor Menteri Besar, New Straits Times, Dec 27, 1992.
"A great idea or change cannot be stopped even by a battalion when its time has come. If he loves the throne he will make sacrifices to make the subjects happy." – Sanusi Junid, Agriculture Minister, New Straits Times, Dec 23, 1992.
"As the country’s highest legislative body, any subject is allowed to be discussed and concluded in the Dewan Rakyat, including matters pertaining to the rulers." - Zahir Ismail, Dewan Rakyat speaker in New Straits Times, Dec 15, 1992.
"If this race was not sovereign, don’t expect the sovereignty of rulers." – Saharudin Hashim, Negri Sembilan Umno delegate, Mingguan Malaysia, Dec 2, 1990.
"We don’t want the palace to impose various conditions before appointing the menteri besars." – Mohd Satim, Selangor Umno delegate, Utusan Malaysia, Dec 3, 1990.
Source: Malaysiakini.com
********************************************************************
LAWS OF MALAYSIA
ACT A848
CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993
The Federal Constitution is amended by inserting, after Article 33, the following Article:
"33A. Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall cease to exercise the functions of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong if charged with an offence.
(1) Where the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is charged with an offence under any law in the Special Court established under Part XV he shall cease to exercise the functions of the Yang di Pertuan Agong.
(2) The period during which the Yang di-Pertuan Agong ceases, under Clause (1), to exercise the functions of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall be deemed to be part of the term of office of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong provided for in Clause (3) of Article 32.".
(1) Where the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is charged with an offence under any law in the Special Court established under Part XV he shall cease to exercise the functions of the Yang di Pertuan Agong.
(2) The period during which the Yang di-Pertuan Agong ceases, under Clause (1), to exercise the functions of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall be deemed to be part of the term of office of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong provided for in Clause (3) of Article 32.".
Article 63 of the Federal constitution is amended by inserting, after Clause (4), the following Clause:
"(5) Notwithstanding Clause (4), no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said by him of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or a Ruler when taking part in any proceedings of either House of Parliament or any committee thereof except where he advocates the abolition of the constitutional position of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as the Supreme Head of the Federation or the constitutional position of the Ruler of a State, as the case may be.".
Section 6. Amendment of Article 72.
Article 72 of the Federal Constitution is amended by inserting, after Clause (4), the following Clause:
" (5) Notwithstanding Clause (4), no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said by him of the Ruler of any State when taking part in any proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or any committee thereof except where he advocates the abolition of the Ruler's position as the constitutional Ruler of that State.".
The Federal Constitution is amended by inserting after Part XIV, the following Part: " PART XV
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE YANG Dl-PERTUAN AGONG AND THE RULERS
182. The Special Court.
(1) There shall be a court which shall be known as the Special Court and shall consist of the Lord President of the Supreme Court, who shall be the Chairman, the Chief Justices of the High Courts, and two other persons who hold or have held office as judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court appointed by the Conference of Rulers.
(2) Any proceedings by or against the Yang di - Pertuan Agong or the Ruler of a State in his personal capacity shall be brought in a Special Court established under Clause (1).
(3) The Special Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to try all offences committed in the Federation by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Ruler of a State and all civil cases by or against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Ruler of a State notwithstanding where the cause of action arose.
(4) The Special Court shall have the same jurisdiction and powers as are vested in the inferior courts, the High Court and the Supreme Court by this Constitution or any federal law and shall have its registry in Kuala Lumpur.
(5) Until Parliament by law makes special provision to the contrary in respect of procedure (including the hearing of proceedings in camera) in civil or criminal cases and the law regulating evidence and proof in civil and criminal proceedings, the practice and procedure applicable in any proceedings in any inferior court, any High Court and the Supreme Court shall apply in any proceedings in the Special Court.
(6) The proceedings in the Special Court shall be decided in accordance with the opinion of the majority of the members and its decision shall be final and conclusive and shall not be challenged or called in question in any court on any ground.
(7) The Yang di Pertuan Agong may, on the advice of the Lord President, make such rules as he may deem necessary or expedient to provide for the removal of any difficulty or anomaly whatsoever in any written law or in the carrying out of any function, the exercise of any power, the discharge of any duty, or the doing of any act, under any written law, that may be occasioned by this Article; and for that purpose such rules may make any modification, adaptation, alteration, change or amendment whatsoever to any written law.
(2) Any proceedings by or against the Yang di - Pertuan Agong or the Ruler of a State in his personal capacity shall be brought in a Special Court established under Clause (1).
(3) The Special Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to try all offences committed in the Federation by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Ruler of a State and all civil cases by or against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Ruler of a State notwithstanding where the cause of action arose.
(4) The Special Court shall have the same jurisdiction and powers as are vested in the inferior courts, the High Court and the Supreme Court by this Constitution or any federal law and shall have its registry in Kuala Lumpur.
(5) Until Parliament by law makes special provision to the contrary in respect of procedure (including the hearing of proceedings in camera) in civil or criminal cases and the law regulating evidence and proof in civil and criminal proceedings, the practice and procedure applicable in any proceedings in any inferior court, any High Court and the Supreme Court shall apply in any proceedings in the Special Court.
(6) The proceedings in the Special Court shall be decided in accordance with the opinion of the majority of the members and its decision shall be final and conclusive and shall not be challenged or called in question in any court on any ground.
(7) The Yang di Pertuan Agong may, on the advice of the Lord President, make such rules as he may deem necessary or expedient to provide for the removal of any difficulty or anomaly whatsoever in any written law or in the carrying out of any function, the exercise of any power, the discharge of any duty, or the doing of any act, under any written law, that may be occasioned by this Article; and for that purpose such rules may make any modification, adaptation, alteration, change or amendment whatsoever to any written law.
183. No action to be instituted against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or a Ruler except with the consent of the Attorney General personally.
No action, civil or criminal, shall be instituted against the Yang di Pertuan Agong or the Ruler of a State in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by him in his personal capacity except with the consent of the Attorney General personally.".
Section 9. Amendment of Eighth Schedule.
The Eighth Schedule to the Federal Constitution is amended by inserting, after section 1, the following provisions: "Proceedings against the Ruler 1A.
(1) Where the Ruler is charged with an offence under any law in the Special Court established under Part XV of the Federal Constitution, he shall cease to exercise the functions of the Ruler of the State.
(2) During the period when the Ruler ceases, under subsection (1), to exercise the functions of the Ruler of the State, a Regent or a Council of Regency, as the case may be, shall be appointed in accordance with the State Constitution to exercise the functions of the Ruler of the State.
(3) Where the Ruler is convicted of an offence in the Special Court and sentenced to imprisonment for more than one day he shall cease to be the Ruler of the State unless he receives a free pardon.".
(2) During the period when the Ruler ceases, under subsection (1), to exercise the functions of the Ruler of the State, a Regent or a Council of Regency, as the case may be, shall be appointed in accordance with the State Constitution to exercise the functions of the Ruler of the State.
(3) Where the Ruler is convicted of an offence in the Special Court and sentenced to imprisonment for more than one day he shall cease to be the Ruler of the State unless he receives a free pardon.".
You can download the ACT A848 from the Digital Library Malaysia
************************************************************************************
16 comments:
what do you mean fren?
Are you tried to say, becoz UMNO did it, so everybody now got a licence to insult rulers?
your truly
org jauh.
mave is just trying to say don't be a hypocrite, don't 'cakap tak serupa bikin'.
Org Jauh,
I had posted and it is up to you to form your perception; my intention is to reveal what had taken place and the readers will have to consumed the letters and interpret it the way they want it without suggestive concoction from me. I have not make any suggestion.
Anon 6:49pm,
Thanks and you have a good reflection which is much appreciated.
Mave,
Without judging whether the Mahathir administration was right or wrong in curbing the Sultans' invincibility; the words derhaka, biadap, titah amongs others have special meaning and connotation in Malay Language. There are special words and phrases when referring to the Sultans because of their utmost respectable status in Malay Society and latter enshrined in the Constitution when Malaysia was formed.
The act of Mahathir and UMNO behind him at the time was the result of events that unfolded. The Sultans are Not God; although almost treated like one in Malay Society relating to Rajas (latter called Sultan when Islam came) steeped in Hindu tradition. When the excesses of the Rulers who were supposed to be Wise, could not be tolerated, something had to be done to curb the powers of the Rulers and bring them back to respectability. It was a monstrous task taken by UMNO with success. Others (other races) stay back incuding of course Mr Karpal. As usual when the path is thorny, UMNO was left to paddle on their own eventhough others were also supportive of the act.
Now... was that derhaka? Was that biadap? Derhaka is when you disobey a DIRECT TITAH, like YB DS Nizar. Biadap is when you say words that are belittling the station of The Rulers. 'Sembah Derhaka' of YB DS Nizar is NOT BIADAP but DERHAKA. Declaring to take the Sultan to COurt, not gracefully, but saying it in public, rattling it as a means of provocation or warning is BIADAP. You never WARN the Rulers. However, the act of taking The Rulers to Court itself; done gracefully through proper channel; devoid of any intended warning in itself is NOT BIADAP. Biadap is in the MANNER of its execution.
I hope that suffice.... Of course the 'Natang' banner seen in Terengganu was BIADAP.
Gukita,
Good explanation.
Just a few pointers: Pak Lah declared that the appointment of Ahmad Said as MB of Terengganu contrary to Umno's choice of Idris Jusoh was unconstitutional and unlawful - what is this? Biadap or Derhaka?
Same with Perlis MB saga.
What about the Umno Youth call to the Sultan not to interfere in politics? You should take note that the sovereign and supremacy of the Rulers are within the political jurisprudence.
What about the civil servants who acted to prevent the Speakers from conducting the legislative functions and what about the police and MACC interference into the legislative functions and questioning its authority, irrespective whether it was right or wrong which should be left to the court's decision?
There much to be observed and singling one issue without reference to the others are in itself lacking integrity.
Take note of ACT A848 Article 63 and 72 and consider the application. Would citing the Articles in ACT A848 biadap or Derhaka?
Gukita,
I forgot to add: The "Natang" call and banners are Umno Youth members and none had been indicted or charged. Observed the prosecution system and consider whether it was also biadap or derhaka of the AG and Police for their refusal to take action on those who were contemptuous and dishonored the Sultan.
This is the epitome of Cakap Tak Serupa Bikin!-
anyway, congrats to Datuk Lee Chong Wei who manage proceed to the All England Finals after defeating Taufik Hidayat a short while ago. His opponent is Lin Dan. A close battle, i hope.Forget abt the Olympics.-Mmudahlupa
Pak Lah declared Ahmad Said appointment after consultation with Agong when His Majesty kept refusing the reinstatement of DSIJ as MB. Where is the biadap here? Biadap is doing acts that undermine the utmost respectability of The Rulers Status.
Calls not to interfere in politics cannot in itself be termed Biadap. Biadap is when the manner of advice given undermines The Ruler's station.
The Civils servant (SUK) was acting on the `belief' that the legal MB is now YB Dr Zambry, upon appointment by Tuanku and The Speaker represent the old establishement.
Citing articles of Law is Not Biadap in itself but assuming Tuanku (former Chief of Justice) as imbecile and not knowing the point in law is.....
Natang is Biadap whether done by UMNO or anybody else. But are you sure those were UMNO banners and not individual acts??
Biadap in itself is NOT a criminal offence punishable by law unless it encroaches into the Seditious Act domain.
However Biadap is an unforgiveable 'offence' to a Malay culture.
Mave, please be clear that Derhaka, biadap, titah, are special words/phrases in Bahasa Melayu exclusively used in referrals to The Sultans. However it made its way into description relating to one's parents also because of their respectable status.
Gukita,
I agree with all your points except "the civil servants was acting on the "belief"..."
I am surprise you said "belief" without the proposition of undue influence and acts of defiance to the rule of law and natural justice.
The intellectuals and jurists have to be blind and senile to fail to digest the essence.
That aside, I think you expounded well on the precepts of Derhaka and Biadap.
Mave,
I said 'belief' because at this juncture where it is unclear which side represent the true side, the SUK have to act based on the Legal Advisor's stand. The Legal Advisor represent the Legal stand of the State Government just as the Peguam Negara represent the Federal Govt Legal stand.
I believe the stand to abide by the Ruler's stand represent the most politically correct stand and least damaging stance to the State Administration.
Gukita,
You conjoin various events.
The appointment of the MB: State legal advisor can act what he had acted;
The emergency Assembly sittings: The Speaker has the power to call a sitting into session and those others including the SLA has no power or legal authority to act to prevent the event from rightfully taking place, irrespective of the possible challenges that the court may have to decide. And the police interrogation of the Speaker in his rightful capacity to conduct the legislative sitting. And the civil servants that lock the building to prevent the lawful sitting from taking place; and many more of the acts by CS, SLA, PDRM, MACC, etc. That's awful!
Mave,
You may be right, I dont know. I have no legal training background. However from what I read, the calling of State Assembly without the Ruler's consent is illegal (of course Mr Siva said the calling of emergency sitting is different from normal seating which required the Ruler's consent). I dont know if there are explicit clauses in Undang2 Tubuh Negeri Perak that give credence to this interpretation.
However, it seems to me that the inherent reasoning behind is that since the calling of regular Assembly need the Ruler's consent, any other Assembly sitting dealing with the SAME thing, having the same function; to decide on issues and with it carries the State Mandate for action must similiarly get the Ruler's consent. Otherwise it makes a mockery of the need to get the Ruler's consent in the first place.
And the 3 issues discussed and passed under the tree were totally political of biased nature.
I stand to be corrected..
Gukita,
The earlier State Assembly sitting consented by the sultan was adjourn "sine die" which means that the emergency sitting was called will be a continuation of the legislative meeting.
That being a fact, and factual, the locking up of the building is an unlawful act committed by civil servants and the refusal by the secretary of the Speaker to issue the directive for the Assembly sitting is an unlawful act. Equally the statement issued by the legal advisor stating that the legislative sitting is illegal is contempt. Then the interference by the police and MACC and blocking the attendance of ADUNs to the state assembly building connote a police state. Many more of other events which runs contrary to the constitutions.
Rightly or wrongly, the issues should have been decided by the court of justice; but the court even denied the conflict of interests which is paramount to the rule of law by refusing lawyers to represent the speakers when the legal advisor had represented the BN MB.
The principles of the rule of law: “It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”.
As Lord Denning would have put it:
“The court will not inquire whether he did in fact, favour one side unfairly. Suffice it that reasonable people might think he did. The reason is plain enough. Justice must be rooted in confidence: and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: 'The judge was biased'.”
NOTE: JUSTICE MUST BE ROOTED IN CONFIDENCE: AND CONFIDENCE IS DESTROYED WHEN RIGHT-MINDED PEOPLE GO AWAY THINKING: "THE JUDGE WAS BIASED."
I think you can digest the solemn words from the distinguished judges.
Thanks Mave for the explanation. I could understand the point of law there.
But, is it true that the Emergency Sitting were CONTINUATION of earlier sitting? Were the issues continuation issues? When the issues raised in the Sitting were fundamental legal issues already tabled for the Court, is it in the line of Duty of The Speaker to use the Assembly sitting to decide upon issues already put to the Court for decision? The facts speak for themselves.
That being said, when the Sultan appointed Zambry as new MB, can that not be construed as the Consent of the Ruler for NEW administration? Hence, doesnt that ACT of The Ruler meant that he NO LONGER consent to continuation sitting based on previous consent made to the previous administration (the field scenario already change).... Just wondering...
Gukita,
There wasn't a standing order to say issues are continuing; the standing orders do allow emergency issues to be debated.
You have forgotten the Separation of Power which is the fundamental doctrines of democracy. The courts cannot interfere with legislative functions; however, any unlawful acts by the legislature can be contested in the court and the courts decision is binding unless appealed to the highest court, that is, the Federal Court who will then decide the rulings. Note that the Parliament or the State Assembly can still amend the Constitution as can be seen in numerous times during Mahathir's tenure as PM.
You probably have mixed up the issue of the MB; Zambry is the MB and there is no question; however, under ACT848A, any acts by the Sultan can still be challenge in the court if his decision is made in his official capacity.
Article 183 states that: "No action to be instituted against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or a Ruler except with the consent of the Attorney General personally."
"No action, civil or criminal, shall be instituted against the Yang di Pertuan Agong or the Ruler of a State in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by him "IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY" except with the consent of the Attorney General personally.".
NOTE: Only in his personal capacity, no actions, civil or criminal can be instituted; but in his official capacity he may be subjected to the court's action.
As such, the appointment of the MB by the Sultan may be challenge in the court. Secondly, there is no provision in the state constitution for the removal of the MB once he is appointed; which means Nizar was appointed and given the instrument of appointment and according to jurists' point the Sultan do not have the power to remove him except to dissolve the state assembly and call for an election. This point is subjected to the future court's ruling as there is no precedent similar case.
The point in contention is: the Speaker of the State Assembly is given such wide discretionary power which cannot be challenge in the courts as noted in the state constitution; however, the Speaker can be removed by a vote in the legislature by votes. Thus Sivakumar can be seen to have acted within his power and authority, irrespective of the facts and irrespective that he could be bias. Read Mahathir's comment at Chedet.com.
Anyway, we are all learning and we await the outcome from the courts.
Mave,
Thank you for your patience. I am not fully convinced but I understand your points and with it the reasoning why Mr Siva's acts ought to be considered within his prerogative and official capacity of his station.
Post a Comment