Sad to hear that a Iban like Jabu is so "kolot" and wanna to scare even his own people to remain in power and become Taib bastard follower to his death! He thinks that the Iban are so stupid like him to believe all this nonsense and probably that gentleman just died of a disease because neglect by the BN government in providing healthcare in the longhouse!
Every kampung in West Malaysia had a Klinik Desa but the Iban had to travel hours and days to seek treatment and left to died like flies because Jabu corrupt all the money and sent his families for vacation in overseas. Taib even don't trust the doctors in Sarawak for a simple checkup and use the people money to seek treatment in Australia! Even though we had doctors who are trained in oversease like UK, Australia, US in the state!
Poor Sarawakians and Iban...Ka Parai Taib dan Jabu.......They deserve to be burnt in hell for their greed and corruption!
MIRI: Pre-election campaigning in Batang Ai has taken a supernatural twist with Barisan Nasio-nal leaders warning of dire consequences for breaking longhouses taboo.
Although nominations of candidates are two weeks’ away, Barisan and opposition leaders have started hurling abuses at each other.
The latest statement made by Sarawak Deputy Chief Minister Tan Sri Alfred Jabu anak Numpang surely tops the list of quotable quotes.
Jabu, who is Parti Pesaka Bumiputra Bersatu deputy president and also State Minister for Rural Development and Infrastruc-ture Development and Communi-cations, warned opposition campaigners and native Ibans of “supernatural repercussions” that awaited those who allowed “outsiders” to enter longhouses and villages.
Jabu said that a resident of the longhouse died of mysterious circumstances two days ago after the longhouse folk allowed opposition members to enter their premises to launch a party branch.
“These outsiders do not understand that there are certain sets of rituals that must be strictly adhere to before they can enter the longhouses.
“They must respect these traditional beliefs or else the longhouse folks will suffer from the repercussions,” he said.
Jabu warned longhouse folks not to allow “outsiders” into their premises.
The opposition has accused the Barisan of trying to intimidate the voters ahead of nomination and polling.
Former three-term Sri Aman Member of Parliament Datuk Jimmy Donald, who has switched from Parti Rakyat Sarawak to Parti Keadilan Rakyat, said BN leaders in Sarawak are trying to prevent opposition leaders from entering the state.
“They (state Barisan leaders) want to stop opposition leaders from entering Sarawak. To Barisan, it would be an advantage if they can stop them from visiting the voters.
“That is why they are employing scare tactics to prevent the voters from meeting us during our visits and ceramah,” he said.
The Batang Ai by-election is held following the death of incumbent Barisan assemblyman Datuk Dublin Unting last month.
The by-election for the Iban-majority seat of 8,061 voters will be held simultaneously with the by-elections in Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau.
Nomination Day is on March 29 and polling is on April 7.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Taib is doom! BN can't even agree on candidate! Trying hard to cheat the Iban in Batang Ai!
Iban shouldn't be cheated again by Taib and Crony Jabu who will manipulate the BN candidate to their own wish! They don't even respect the PRS candidate as they will intimidate any one apart from their close relative!
Wake up! Fellow Iban! Ka Parai Taib dan Jabu....pengkhianat Iban!
Batang Ai by election: Taib confirms more names submitted
Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud today confirmed that more names have been submitted for consideration as a possible candidate for the Batang Ai by-election. And this seems to confirm the news disclosed by The Broken Shield yesterday.In an interview with a national newspaper, he said that the Barisan Nasional would meet this Saturday and would name the candidate.Parti Rakyat Sarawak (PRS) James Masing had submitted the name of a senior civil servant to the chief minister. However, the chief minister was said to have asked for more names, so that he had a better choice to choose from the list.Deputy Chief Minister Alfred Jabu also submitted another list of candidates for consideration.Meanwhile, the youth leader of PRS of Batang Ai Branch, Vicker Andrew Enting wanted the BN to consider Nelson Naga Alam, private secretary to the late Dublin Unting to be a candidate.The people, he said, would prefer a local rather than a parachute so-called professional to be a candidate.“We will be very disappointed if Naga Alam is not the candidate,” he said.Knowing that Taib was not happy with the PRS’ recommendation, two more persons have expressed interest to contest in the by-election as a BN candidate. One of them is a headmaster of a school and the other is an engineer.Both of them have been conducting a signature campaign right in front of PKR officials today.While PKR candidate is more or less settled, the Barisan Nasional candidate is uncertain and this has placed the PRS and BN leadership in a dilemma. - The Broken Shield
Wake up! Fellow Iban! Ka Parai Taib dan Jabu....pengkhianat Iban!
Batang Ai by election: Taib confirms more names submitted
Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud today confirmed that more names have been submitted for consideration as a possible candidate for the Batang Ai by-election. And this seems to confirm the news disclosed by The Broken Shield yesterday.In an interview with a national newspaper, he said that the Barisan Nasional would meet this Saturday and would name the candidate.Parti Rakyat Sarawak (PRS) James Masing had submitted the name of a senior civil servant to the chief minister. However, the chief minister was said to have asked for more names, so that he had a better choice to choose from the list.Deputy Chief Minister Alfred Jabu also submitted another list of candidates for consideration.Meanwhile, the youth leader of PRS of Batang Ai Branch, Vicker Andrew Enting wanted the BN to consider Nelson Naga Alam, private secretary to the late Dublin Unting to be a candidate.The people, he said, would prefer a local rather than a parachute so-called professional to be a candidate.“We will be very disappointed if Naga Alam is not the candidate,” he said.Knowing that Taib was not happy with the PRS’ recommendation, two more persons have expressed interest to contest in the by-election as a BN candidate. One of them is a headmaster of a school and the other is an engineer.Both of them have been conducting a signature campaign right in front of PKR officials today.While PKR candidate is more or less settled, the Barisan Nasional candidate is uncertain and this has placed the PRS and BN leadership in a dilemma. - The Broken Shield
Monday, March 9, 2009
Iban considered sakai and palloi by the Taib and his crony including Joseph Salang! Read this and you will understand why!
The Iban is regarded as sakai and palloi by their own corrupted "leader" who is corrupted together with Taib the bastard! They will continue to cheat the people by making empty promise and then robbed the Iban of their Native Land! They will continue to do so and assume that the Ibans is stupid and satisfied with a few thousands ringgit given out before any election
Poor little Iban! Wake up! See who is your enemy! Ka Parai nuan!
This is the fine example of cheating:
Lubok Antu folk to enjoy phone, Internet servicePosted by tis must be a joke - only now? on March 09, 2009 at 07:42:51:
Lubok Antu folk to enjoy phone, Internet service soonBy Jacob Achoi
LUBOK ANTU: The people of Lubok Antu will soon enjoy the benefits of Internet and telephone service with the construction of a telecommunication tower and community broadband centre in the area.
Deputy Minister of Energy, Water and Communications Datuk Joseph Salang Gandum said the tower would enable the locals to enjoy the services of mobile and fixed telephone lines, while the centre would be equipped with computers and Internet access.
Salang said on Saturday night that the tower to be built at a cost of about RM1.2 million and the centre between RM1.2 and RM1.5 million would come “very soon”.
He also said that the locals would start receiving rebates for their outboard engines by March 18.
At the meet-the-people session at Ruman Jangan that evening, Salang who is Julau MP, was quick to stress that the announcement was not a political gimmick, but a coincidence.
“What the government is giving to the people is not an election gimmick,” Salang said at the gathering, which was held during the launch of Universal Service Provision (USP) for the people here.
He said both projects were decided and approved last November, adding that the government had spent about RM20.2 million for the USP projects in Batang Ai.
According to him, another RM20 million would be spent until the end of next year.
“The government is making continuous effort to reduce the digital divide between urban and rural areas.”
On the outboard engine rebate, he explained that it had to be sorted out, adding that the amount had to be based on the horsepower of the engines.
Salang went on to say that the construction of the telecommunication tower would include putting up portable generator to benefit the longhouses that had yet to enjoy electricity supply.
“With the construction of the tower, 60 public telephones will be installed at various longhouses here and in Batang Ai,” Salang said.
On the setting up of a community broadband centre, Salang explained that Malaysian Commission of Communications and Multimedia would employ two local graduates in Computer Science to teach the locals to use computers and surf the Internet.
Salang, who is information chief of Parti Rakyat Sarawak (PRS) also urged locals to support whoever the party might field in the coming by-election, saying the Barisan Nasional was always there to help the people.
“We acknowledge the difficulties faced by the people, but development only comes slowly but surely,” Salang said at the function, which was also attended by Lubok Antu MP William Nyalau, Balai Ringin assemblyman Snowdan Lawan, Lubok Antu District Officer Nelson Mujah Girie and MCCM senior director Datuk Jailaini Johari.
Salang later gave a personal donation of RM1,000 to the longhouse (Rh Jangan).
Poor little Iban! Wake up! See who is your enemy! Ka Parai nuan!
This is the fine example of cheating:
Lubok Antu folk to enjoy phone, Internet servicePosted by tis must be a joke - only now? on March 09, 2009 at 07:42:51:
Lubok Antu folk to enjoy phone, Internet service soonBy Jacob Achoi
LUBOK ANTU: The people of Lubok Antu will soon enjoy the benefits of Internet and telephone service with the construction of a telecommunication tower and community broadband centre in the area.
Deputy Minister of Energy, Water and Communications Datuk Joseph Salang Gandum said the tower would enable the locals to enjoy the services of mobile and fixed telephone lines, while the centre would be equipped with computers and Internet access.
Salang said on Saturday night that the tower to be built at a cost of about RM1.2 million and the centre between RM1.2 and RM1.5 million would come “very soon”.
He also said that the locals would start receiving rebates for their outboard engines by March 18.
At the meet-the-people session at Ruman Jangan that evening, Salang who is Julau MP, was quick to stress that the announcement was not a political gimmick, but a coincidence.
“What the government is giving to the people is not an election gimmick,” Salang said at the gathering, which was held during the launch of Universal Service Provision (USP) for the people here.
He said both projects were decided and approved last November, adding that the government had spent about RM20.2 million for the USP projects in Batang Ai.
According to him, another RM20 million would be spent until the end of next year.
“The government is making continuous effort to reduce the digital divide between urban and rural areas.”
On the outboard engine rebate, he explained that it had to be sorted out, adding that the amount had to be based on the horsepower of the engines.
Salang went on to say that the construction of the telecommunication tower would include putting up portable generator to benefit the longhouses that had yet to enjoy electricity supply.
“With the construction of the tower, 60 public telephones will be installed at various longhouses here and in Batang Ai,” Salang said.
On the setting up of a community broadband centre, Salang explained that Malaysian Commission of Communications and Multimedia would employ two local graduates in Computer Science to teach the locals to use computers and surf the Internet.
Salang, who is information chief of Parti Rakyat Sarawak (PRS) also urged locals to support whoever the party might field in the coming by-election, saying the Barisan Nasional was always there to help the people.
“We acknowledge the difficulties faced by the people, but development only comes slowly but surely,” Salang said at the function, which was also attended by Lubok Antu MP William Nyalau, Balai Ringin assemblyman Snowdan Lawan, Lubok Antu District Officer Nelson Mujah Girie and MCCM senior director Datuk Jailaini Johari.
Salang later gave a personal donation of RM1,000 to the longhouse (Rh Jangan).
Another corrupted judge in Malaysia!! Ridwan Ibrahim! A scumbag! Shame on him!
The arrogance of a novice judgePosted by How to judge the judge? on March 09, 2009 at 08:27:50:
The arrogance of a novice judge: How to judge the judge?March 7, 2009 · No Comments
by N. H. Chan
In The Sun newspaper, March 4, 2009, I read on page 1 this alarming report:
“Ipoh High Court grants injunction sought by Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and the six State Executive Councillors to stop speaker V. Sivakumar from convening any state assembly sitting.Court also ruled that Sivakumar’s five lawyers have no legal standing to represent him in the case filed by Zambry to seek a declaration that Sivakumar’s decision to suspend him and his executive council was unconstitutional and unlawful.”
The arrogance of a novice judge
I must say I was taken aback by the astonishing ruling of the High Court judge. The full report is on page 6 of the newspaper. There I find that the judge was Mr Ridwan Ibrahim, a judicial commissioner. He ruled that the lawyers “engaged by Sivakumar had no locus standi to represent him in an application by Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir, who is seeking a declaration that Sivakumar’s decision to suspend him and his executive council was unconstitutional and unlawful”.
Sivakumar’s leading lawyer was Mr Tommy Thomas, and I quote from the newspaper of what he said:
“Thomas recounted what happened in chambers at a press conference outside the court.He said the judge had earlier asked that only one lawyer from each party enter his chambers, so he (Thomas) went in on behalf of Sivakumar, while Zambry was represented by a counsel and the state legal officer.‘An objection was made against me and my team, saying that we had no locus standi to represent the Speaker’.”
The objection was under section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act:
” … ‘the judge ruled against us saying that we had no locus standi and therefore we cannot defend the Speaker who can only be represented by the state legal adviser’.. . . when he asked if he couid sit in and hold a watching brief with speaking rights, Ridwan ruled that no speaking rights would be granted but he could hold a watching brief.”
I am appalled at the arrogance of the judge. I am quite sure he is not an expert in constitutional law and even if he were, in a case of such great public importance to the nation, it is wise to listen to the views of the other side. Especially in this case, when eminent counsel Mr Tommy Thomas was available to assist him. The judge could have invited him to submit as an amicus curiae - in Latin it means ‘friend of the court’ and when the phrase is used in a court of law i means ‘one who advises the court in a csae’. I have done that many times even when I was in the Court of Appeal. Judges of far greater eminence than this Judicial Commissioner have often asked lawyers of great experience who are in the court for their valued views. Yet this judge thought he knew everything that he did not require any assistance from one of the top lawyers in the country. Dick Hamilton in his book Foul Bills and Dagger Money wrote, at pages 244, 245:
“It is always easy to criticise judges, and some of them deserve it from time to time; but it is even easier to underestimate the difficulty of their task, and to take their successes for granted. No member of the Bar pretends to understand every branch of the law. … But a High Court Judge has to deal with any sort of case which comes before him.”
In order for the judge to tackle all sorts of cases which come before him, the wise and able judge is always humble enough to ask any of the lawyers in court who is an expert in his field for assistance. Here we have Tommy Thomas who is one of the top lawyers in the country who was only too willing to assist the judge, yet this probationary judge, who thinks he knew more law than some of the most eminent judges who have sat on the bench, refused to hear Mr Thomas.
How you can judge this judge
You cannot judge a judge unless you know the basic law yourself. But you do not have to worry because I shall now provide you with the law applicable so that you are in a position to judge the judge. You may be surprised at your own ability after you have read this. You might think that even a layman, after reading the applicable law, knows what is the right decision to make. And when a judge does not know the correct answer, it makes you wonder how such a thing could have happened.
On section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956
I shall start with section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956. I have highlighted the important words for easier reading. Subsections (1) reads:
“(1) Notwithstanding any written law(a) in civil proceedings by or against the Federal Government …(b) in civil proceedings by or against the Government of a State a law officer … authorised by the Legal Adviser of such State … may appear as advocate on behalf of such Government … “
As you can see this subsection is not relevant as it only applies to civil suits brought by or against the State Government.
And subsection (2), which is relevant on the subject of discussion, reads:
“(2) Notwithstanding any written law in civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party -(a) by virtue of his office; or(b) in his personal capacity, if the Attorney General certifies in writing that it is in the public interest that such officer should be represented by a legal officer;a legal officer may appear as advocate on behalf of such officer … “
See also section 2 of the Act which gives the definition of:
” ‘legal officer’ includes a law officer”” ‘law officer’ means . . . in respect of proceedings by or against the Government of a State or to which a State officer is a party, includes the Legal Adviser of such State”
This subsection only applies to civil suits brought by or against a public officer. In such a case, a public officer may (the word is “may” not “must”) be represented by a legal officer which could include the Legal Adviser of the State. There is, therefore, nothing in section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act to suggest that a public officer if he sues or if he is sued must be represented by a legal officer such as the State Legal Officer.
In any case, section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act only applies to civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party. Therefore, the question is, does the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of a State hold office as a member of the public service - if he does then he is a public officer. Article 132, Clause (3) of the Federal Constitution states that:
“(3) The public service shall not be taken to comprise -(a) …(b) the office of President, Speaker, Deputy President, Deputy Speaker or member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly of a State;”
So now you koow that the Speaker and the members of the Legislative Assembly of a State are not part of the public service as they do not hold office as such public officers. Therefore, section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act does not apply to them. Now we all know, except the judge because he thought he knew better, that Mr Tommy Thomas could not be prevented to appear for the Speaker Sivakumar. If only he would hear Mr Thomas, instead of barring him from speaking, he would not have made such a grave error.
On the conflict between the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the Law
According to newspaper reports the case is an application by Mentri Besar Zambry to the court the decision of the speaker Sivakumar in the legislative assembly to suspend him and his 6 exco members unconstitutional and unlawful. The question is, can the courts decide on the validity of the proceedings in the Legislative Assembly?
The answer is staring right at us here in Federal Constitution. Article 72, Clauses (1) to (3) states:
“(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.
(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.
(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of any State.”
So now you know from the Federal Constitution itself that the validity of the suspension of Zambry and his 6 exco members by the Speaker in the State Assembly cannot be questioned in any court.
Lord Denning tried to inquire into a private Act of Parliament on the ground that Parliament was misled by fraud but he failed. The case is Pickin v. British Railways Board [1974] A.C. 765. He recounted this in his book What Next in the Law at page 319:
“A little while ago there was a case where the British Railways Board got a private Act vesting a man’s land in the Board without payment. He alleged that Parliament had been misled by fraud. In the Court of Appeal we held that the judges could inquire into it. But the House of Lords overruled us. They held that no inquiry by the judges could be permitted.”
It is important to remember that the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. What more when we have a written constitution which says that “the validity of any proceedings in the State Legislative Assembly shall not be questioned in any court”.
From what we have read from the newspapers it seems that there is an injunction against the Speaker. You may also wonder how an injunction can be obtained against the Speaker when our written constitution says that “no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the State”.
In The Family Story, Lord Denning tells us this story, at pages 194, 195:
“I would recall the great case of Ashby v. White 1 Smith’s Leading Cases 253 in 1703. There was a conflict between the House of Commons and the Law. A ‘poor indigent’ man named Mathias Ashby went to the polling booth and claimed a right to vote for two members of Parliament: but the voting officers refused to allow him to vote on the ground that he was no settled inhabitant of the borough. Ashby brought an action for damages. The House of Lords then resolved that Ashby was entitled to bring his action and to recover his damages of £5. The House there not only vindicated the fundamental right of a citizen to vote, but it also established the great principle that wherever a man has a right, he shall have a remedy at law to enforce it. The decision, so clearly a broadening of freedom, was, however, furiously opposed by the House of Commons. They ordered the arrest of the solicitor who acted for Ashby; and they committed to prison five other men simply because they, like Ashby, brought actions against the returning officers. These men applied for a writ of habeas corpus. They had counsel to argue for them. But the House of Commons thereupon took action against the counsel. The Sergeant-at-Arms actually arrested two of the counsel and would also have liked to have taken a third, Mr Nicholas Lechmere, ‘but that he got out of his chamber in the Temple, two pair of stairs high, at the back window, by the help of his sheets and a rope’. The controversy between the two Houses was only resolved because Queen Anne prorogued Parliament and the prisoners were released.”
The above account is not as strange as it seems. It is the common law of England and the common law of England that was in force on 7 April 1956 is embodied into the common law of West Malaysia, and the state of Perak is in West Malaysia, by virtue of section 3(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956.
There is an interesting episode in Lord Denning’s The Family Story about a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. He wrote, at page 192:
“In the ordinary way there is no conflict between our two great institutions - Parliament and the Courts. But in exceptional cases there has been. … The Houses of Parliament enjoy certain privileges. One of them is freedom of speech. Erskine May says: ‘What is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be enquired into in a court of law’.”
At page 193:
“On 8 February 1957 Mr Strause M.P. wrote a letter - on House of Commons paper - to Mr Maudling, the Paymaster-General. He complained of the behaviour of the London Electricity Board. He said that they were disposing of scrap cables at too low a price. He said their conduct was a scandal. Mr Maudling … passed the complaints on to the London Electricity Board. … The Board’s solicitor on 4 March 1957 wrote saying:Your letter is wholly unsatisfactory and we are instituting proceedings …That simple solicitor’s letter raised the great constitutional issue. Who was supreme? Parliament or the Courts of Law? Mr Strause said the letter (threatening a writ) was a breach of the priveleges of Parliament, and that the Board and its solicitor were punishable by the House itself. The London Electricity Boardsaid that they were entitled to have recourse to the Courts of Law and that the House of Commons could not stop them.The issue was referred to the Privy Council. Seven Law Lords sat to hear them. I was one of them. I found myself in a minority of one. . . . They held that the House of Commons could treat the issue of a writ against a Member of Parliament - in respect of a speech or proceeding in Parliament - as a breach of its privileges.”
At page 194:
“So if you read the Report in the Law Reports - re the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1770 [1958] A.C. 331 - you would think that it was a unanimous opinion of all seven,”
Those of you who are lawyers will know that the decision or advice of the Privy Council is given as a single opinion - only the majority view is given.
——————————————————————————–
NH CHAN, who is former Court of Appeal judge, lives in Ipoh.
The arrogance of a novice judge: How to judge the judge?March 7, 2009 · No Comments
by N. H. Chan
In The Sun newspaper, March 4, 2009, I read on page 1 this alarming report:
“Ipoh High Court grants injunction sought by Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and the six State Executive Councillors to stop speaker V. Sivakumar from convening any state assembly sitting.Court also ruled that Sivakumar’s five lawyers have no legal standing to represent him in the case filed by Zambry to seek a declaration that Sivakumar’s decision to suspend him and his executive council was unconstitutional and unlawful.”
The arrogance of a novice judge
I must say I was taken aback by the astonishing ruling of the High Court judge. The full report is on page 6 of the newspaper. There I find that the judge was Mr Ridwan Ibrahim, a judicial commissioner. He ruled that the lawyers “engaged by Sivakumar had no locus standi to represent him in an application by Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir, who is seeking a declaration that Sivakumar’s decision to suspend him and his executive council was unconstitutional and unlawful”.
Sivakumar’s leading lawyer was Mr Tommy Thomas, and I quote from the newspaper of what he said:
“Thomas recounted what happened in chambers at a press conference outside the court.He said the judge had earlier asked that only one lawyer from each party enter his chambers, so he (Thomas) went in on behalf of Sivakumar, while Zambry was represented by a counsel and the state legal officer.‘An objection was made against me and my team, saying that we had no locus standi to represent the Speaker’.”
The objection was under section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act:
” … ‘the judge ruled against us saying that we had no locus standi and therefore we cannot defend the Speaker who can only be represented by the state legal adviser’.. . . when he asked if he couid sit in and hold a watching brief with speaking rights, Ridwan ruled that no speaking rights would be granted but he could hold a watching brief.”
I am appalled at the arrogance of the judge. I am quite sure he is not an expert in constitutional law and even if he were, in a case of such great public importance to the nation, it is wise to listen to the views of the other side. Especially in this case, when eminent counsel Mr Tommy Thomas was available to assist him. The judge could have invited him to submit as an amicus curiae - in Latin it means ‘friend of the court’ and when the phrase is used in a court of law i means ‘one who advises the court in a csae’. I have done that many times even when I was in the Court of Appeal. Judges of far greater eminence than this Judicial Commissioner have often asked lawyers of great experience who are in the court for their valued views. Yet this judge thought he knew everything that he did not require any assistance from one of the top lawyers in the country. Dick Hamilton in his book Foul Bills and Dagger Money wrote, at pages 244, 245:
“It is always easy to criticise judges, and some of them deserve it from time to time; but it is even easier to underestimate the difficulty of their task, and to take their successes for granted. No member of the Bar pretends to understand every branch of the law. … But a High Court Judge has to deal with any sort of case which comes before him.”
In order for the judge to tackle all sorts of cases which come before him, the wise and able judge is always humble enough to ask any of the lawyers in court who is an expert in his field for assistance. Here we have Tommy Thomas who is one of the top lawyers in the country who was only too willing to assist the judge, yet this probationary judge, who thinks he knew more law than some of the most eminent judges who have sat on the bench, refused to hear Mr Thomas.
How you can judge this judge
You cannot judge a judge unless you know the basic law yourself. But you do not have to worry because I shall now provide you with the law applicable so that you are in a position to judge the judge. You may be surprised at your own ability after you have read this. You might think that even a layman, after reading the applicable law, knows what is the right decision to make. And when a judge does not know the correct answer, it makes you wonder how such a thing could have happened.
On section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956
I shall start with section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956. I have highlighted the important words for easier reading. Subsections (1) reads:
“(1) Notwithstanding any written law(a) in civil proceedings by or against the Federal Government …(b) in civil proceedings by or against the Government of a State a law officer … authorised by the Legal Adviser of such State … may appear as advocate on behalf of such Government … “
As you can see this subsection is not relevant as it only applies to civil suits brought by or against the State Government.
And subsection (2), which is relevant on the subject of discussion, reads:
“(2) Notwithstanding any written law in civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party -(a) by virtue of his office; or(b) in his personal capacity, if the Attorney General certifies in writing that it is in the public interest that such officer should be represented by a legal officer;a legal officer may appear as advocate on behalf of such officer … “
See also section 2 of the Act which gives the definition of:
” ‘legal officer’ includes a law officer”” ‘law officer’ means . . . in respect of proceedings by or against the Government of a State or to which a State officer is a party, includes the Legal Adviser of such State”
This subsection only applies to civil suits brought by or against a public officer. In such a case, a public officer may (the word is “may” not “must”) be represented by a legal officer which could include the Legal Adviser of the State. There is, therefore, nothing in section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act to suggest that a public officer if he sues or if he is sued must be represented by a legal officer such as the State Legal Officer.
In any case, section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act only applies to civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party. Therefore, the question is, does the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of a State hold office as a member of the public service - if he does then he is a public officer. Article 132, Clause (3) of the Federal Constitution states that:
“(3) The public service shall not be taken to comprise -(a) …(b) the office of President, Speaker, Deputy President, Deputy Speaker or member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly of a State;”
So now you koow that the Speaker and the members of the Legislative Assembly of a State are not part of the public service as they do not hold office as such public officers. Therefore, section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act does not apply to them. Now we all know, except the judge because he thought he knew better, that Mr Tommy Thomas could not be prevented to appear for the Speaker Sivakumar. If only he would hear Mr Thomas, instead of barring him from speaking, he would not have made such a grave error.
On the conflict between the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the Law
According to newspaper reports the case is an application by Mentri Besar Zambry to the court the decision of the speaker Sivakumar in the legislative assembly to suspend him and his 6 exco members unconstitutional and unlawful. The question is, can the courts decide on the validity of the proceedings in the Legislative Assembly?
The answer is staring right at us here in Federal Constitution. Article 72, Clauses (1) to (3) states:
“(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.
(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.
(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of any State.”
So now you know from the Federal Constitution itself that the validity of the suspension of Zambry and his 6 exco members by the Speaker in the State Assembly cannot be questioned in any court.
Lord Denning tried to inquire into a private Act of Parliament on the ground that Parliament was misled by fraud but he failed. The case is Pickin v. British Railways Board [1974] A.C. 765. He recounted this in his book What Next in the Law at page 319:
“A little while ago there was a case where the British Railways Board got a private Act vesting a man’s land in the Board without payment. He alleged that Parliament had been misled by fraud. In the Court of Appeal we held that the judges could inquire into it. But the House of Lords overruled us. They held that no inquiry by the judges could be permitted.”
It is important to remember that the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. What more when we have a written constitution which says that “the validity of any proceedings in the State Legislative Assembly shall not be questioned in any court”.
From what we have read from the newspapers it seems that there is an injunction against the Speaker. You may also wonder how an injunction can be obtained against the Speaker when our written constitution says that “no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the State”.
In The Family Story, Lord Denning tells us this story, at pages 194, 195:
“I would recall the great case of Ashby v. White 1 Smith’s Leading Cases 253 in 1703. There was a conflict between the House of Commons and the Law. A ‘poor indigent’ man named Mathias Ashby went to the polling booth and claimed a right to vote for two members of Parliament: but the voting officers refused to allow him to vote on the ground that he was no settled inhabitant of the borough. Ashby brought an action for damages. The House of Lords then resolved that Ashby was entitled to bring his action and to recover his damages of £5. The House there not only vindicated the fundamental right of a citizen to vote, but it also established the great principle that wherever a man has a right, he shall have a remedy at law to enforce it. The decision, so clearly a broadening of freedom, was, however, furiously opposed by the House of Commons. They ordered the arrest of the solicitor who acted for Ashby; and they committed to prison five other men simply because they, like Ashby, brought actions against the returning officers. These men applied for a writ of habeas corpus. They had counsel to argue for them. But the House of Commons thereupon took action against the counsel. The Sergeant-at-Arms actually arrested two of the counsel and would also have liked to have taken a third, Mr Nicholas Lechmere, ‘but that he got out of his chamber in the Temple, two pair of stairs high, at the back window, by the help of his sheets and a rope’. The controversy between the two Houses was only resolved because Queen Anne prorogued Parliament and the prisoners were released.”
The above account is not as strange as it seems. It is the common law of England and the common law of England that was in force on 7 April 1956 is embodied into the common law of West Malaysia, and the state of Perak is in West Malaysia, by virtue of section 3(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956.
There is an interesting episode in Lord Denning’s The Family Story about a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. He wrote, at page 192:
“In the ordinary way there is no conflict between our two great institutions - Parliament and the Courts. But in exceptional cases there has been. … The Houses of Parliament enjoy certain privileges. One of them is freedom of speech. Erskine May says: ‘What is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be enquired into in a court of law’.”
At page 193:
“On 8 February 1957 Mr Strause M.P. wrote a letter - on House of Commons paper - to Mr Maudling, the Paymaster-General. He complained of the behaviour of the London Electricity Board. He said that they were disposing of scrap cables at too low a price. He said their conduct was a scandal. Mr Maudling … passed the complaints on to the London Electricity Board. … The Board’s solicitor on 4 March 1957 wrote saying:Your letter is wholly unsatisfactory and we are instituting proceedings …That simple solicitor’s letter raised the great constitutional issue. Who was supreme? Parliament or the Courts of Law? Mr Strause said the letter (threatening a writ) was a breach of the priveleges of Parliament, and that the Board and its solicitor were punishable by the House itself. The London Electricity Boardsaid that they were entitled to have recourse to the Courts of Law and that the House of Commons could not stop them.The issue was referred to the Privy Council. Seven Law Lords sat to hear them. I was one of them. I found myself in a minority of one. . . . They held that the House of Commons could treat the issue of a writ against a Member of Parliament - in respect of a speech or proceeding in Parliament - as a breach of its privileges.”
At page 194:
“So if you read the Report in the Law Reports - re the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1770 [1958] A.C. 331 - you would think that it was a unanimous opinion of all seven,”
Those of you who are lawyers will know that the decision or advice of the Privy Council is given as a single opinion - only the majority view is given.
——————————————————————————–
NH CHAN, who is former Court of Appeal judge, lives in Ipoh.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
PEMUDA UMNO is NAZI in MALAYSIA! Look at this photo!
This monkey Khairy who led the UMNO YOUTH is like the NAZI in Malaysia! He is the shame of Malays, Malaysia and even the Oxford that he claimed he study in! His extremist way is the tactic used by UMNO to intimidate the people and he think he still live in Zimbabwe where he is the close ally to Mugambe!!
To hell with Khairy and UMNO PUTERA!
Iban in Batang Ai is cheated by this Taib Bastard and his crony dog Alfred Jabu the greedy man! Shame to them!
The people of Sarawak had suffer long enough with the development far behind their fellow citizen in West Malaysia......all are the results of the corrupted warlord, Taib the bastard Mahmmod and his cronies dogs including Alfred Jabu who enrich themselves and the family.
It is time we made them pay for causing so much suffering to the people of Sarawak in particularly the Iban and Bidayuh as well as Orang Ulu who had being cheated by them and still live in the sorry state!
The Iban "head" like James Masing and William Mawan are just another puppet who are being fed with corrupted money by Taib the bastard.
Wake up Iban.....Vote Taib and their crony out of Sarawak!
Kick their ass! For the future od the Sarawakian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
