Sunday, May 10, 2009

The Perak Circus - Anwarisme

V Sivakumar In The Morning

The battle for Perak began with Speaker V Sivakumar declaring that Dr Zambry and 9 other ADUNs re not allowed to be in the Assembly as he considered them suspended. (The Star - Battleground Ipoh)

This move was seen as a contempt of Court given that we are well informed by the media on two significant judgements.
  1. Court: Sivakumar has no power to suspend Zambry, excos
  2. Three Perak independents keep their seats
For those who think that the Courts are kangaroos of the ruling party, please take note that Tan Sri Joseph Kurup (BN - Pensiangan) Parliamentary seat and Abdullah Hassan (BN - Sanglang) state seat were declared vacant by the Courts also.

The Court's ruling of vacancy in the two state seats were later overruled by the Federal Court with
  1. TS Joseph Kurup keeping his Pensiangan seat
  2. Hashim Jasin of PAS declared the winner of Sanglang seat

I don't remember hearing anyone screaming conspiracies or tainted judiciary at that time.

Maybe the people today are just so in loved with Anwarisme, an ideology which commands near equal status of a religion.

Then, at noon, “Former” Speaker V. Sivakumar says this mornings proceedings are not valid, noting that the Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah, had yet to deliver his opening address. Sivakumar says that the sitting proper begins only after the opening address (The Star).

But, the State Assembly proceedings under the Tree Of Demo-crazy (democracy) was legal ?

The proceedings under the tree in Ipoh right behind the Bangunan SUK did not receive the necessary consent of DYMM Sultan Perak and neither was there a Royal opening address.

Yes, that time Sivakumar said that it was legal and Constitutional !

Power has corrupted your mind. What more to say the self belief of an absolute power in the hands of a State Speaker?

Man, I love you V Sivakumar. You are the man !




36A. Speaker of the Legislative Assembly

(2) The Speaker may at any time resign his office and shall vacate his office -

(a) when the Legislative Assembly first meets after a general election;

(b) on his ceasing to be a member of the Assembly otherwise than by a reason of a dissolution thereof or, if he is a member by virtue only of a paragraph (b) of Clause (1A), on his ceasing to be qualified to be a member;

(c) upon being disqualified under Clause (5); or

(d) if the Assembly at any time so resolves


The State Assembly proceedings then continued when Dr Zambry put forth a motion for the removal of V Sivakumar as Speaker although constantly heckled by Pakatan Rakyat reps face to face.

The Speaker, not knowing much about the limits of his powers or the Standing Orders, refused to hear Dr Zambry's motion.

As an elected rep and an appointed Menteri Besar of Perak, Dr Zambry exercised his rights to move a motion to vote against the Speaker.

Subsequently, 28 BN elected reps and 3 Independent ADUNs resolved that the Speaker shall vacate his office.


Assembly Proceedings - Late Noon

For the Assembly to proceed on, there had to be a Speaker nevertheless.

Given that the highest order of the House is held by YB Deputy Speaker Hee Yit Foong at that time, she ordered the removal of V Sivakumar from the Speaker's seat but was not executed.

Earlier on, the sergeant-at-arms also did not proceed with Sivakumar's orders to eject the 10 ADUNs.

After V Sivakumar was relieved from his duties, a new Speaker was installed by the majority of the House in full ceremonial robes and with an Oath-taking session.

Being not the rightful Speaker and trespassed into the seat of the highest order of the House, the Assembly officials were left with no choice but to remove Sivakumar from the Speaker's Seat.

Matters got worse from there, even though the Regent of Perak was in the House. It was only rational for there to be a security barricade in the House to protect the Raja Muda and Raja Puan Besar of Perak.

These were all successfully manipulated to make Perak look like a Police state.


The Smiles Outside - A Successful Public Relations Campaign ?

Some were detained for breaking a Court order and were seen smiling to the cameras like heroes. The Court had ruled that peace and order should be in place within 500 metres of the Bangunan SUK Perak.

More and more elected reps started to barge against the barricade and Court order and left with no choice, the Police had to detain them.

These again contributed to the image of the Opposition where a Black Thursday was painted with expected news that "more than a dozen elected reps arrested" being the focus of the spin.

Malaysia, Truly Asia. We are now embracing Anwarisme.


(Credits to TheStar, NST, Minaq Jinggo and SinChew for the photos)

6 comments:

Jimmy Tham said...

Disagreeing on the perak fiasco doesn't mean one is with anwar, nor are one is against BN.

The clause "at any time the assembly resolves" still means the motion has to be put forth and siva can still reject the motion although it seems unethical for him to do so when the majority wants him to go. I wouldn't say he does not know his limit, he is just abusing his power to protect his interest.

Obviously, even before the motion is proposed by Zambry, Siva still has the power of a speaker at hand. But it doesn't seems like BN ADUNs and the staff of the house care about it anyway. Can we say utter disrespect to the house and indirectly link it to disrespect to the moarch?

Indeed I'll have to agree, them smilling, it was a big PR coup for them. Security for the royals? yes, needed. But a no-man zone within 500metres? Blatant abuse of power and I wonder why didn't private businesses undertake a class lawsuit against the current BN government for loss of income and businesses.

On the court rulings on the above 2 seats, the opposition will probably scream back "there's nothing they can do a bout, we have hard cold concrete evidence to proof it". Simply trying to convince those hardcore PR supporters who are blinded by their ideology, I would say it's impossible =)

Goh Wei Liang said...

Nope. You got yourself wrong this time. Under the Standing Orders, the Speaker can be removed if a motion if brought forth from the floor and when the majority of the floor votes for it.

That is the meaning of that section (d).

The official staff of the assembly remained impartial throughout the day.

When Sivakumar ordered the Sergeant At Arms to remove Zambry & Co, the SAR did not do so.

When YB Hee ordered the removal of Sivakumar based on her status as the highest order of the House at that time (Deputy Speaker), the SAR did not act on it also.

Jared said...

I still don't understand why proceed with an assembly meeting when the high courts have yet to resolve the issue of who is rightfully the MB of Perak, Zambry or Nizar.

Having "2 MBs" in the same House is like putting 2 Tigers in a den. This was poorly managed.

Jimmy Tham said...

A motion yes, put forth yes, but it was rejected by siva so how can the motion be put to vote if the speaker rejected it?

Now would be interesting. Remember how PR bloggers claimed judge are bias and they transcend the boundary of separation of powers? =) lol. Now we'll see what they say about the latest ruling.

Goh Wei Liang said...

The Standing Orders allow the floor to present a motion to remove the Speaker without him approving the motion.

It is stated in the Constitution and that is what was meant by "the assembly resolves".

Mohd Syameer Firdaus said...

what the hell is this?! is this a 'dewan undangan negeri' or a terrible fight in jungle!!!

shame to them!