Thursday, April 23, 2009

To my fellow Bloggers, take note ...

Yes, Good ol' Rais is back, guns a-blazin'

The Information, Com­munications, Culture and Arts Ministry will use a “diplomatic approach” in dealing with private media corporations and bloggers.

Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim said the ministry preferred to take follow-up efforts than legal action against those who have violated the laws.

He said they, however, have to act against the hardcore perpetrators.

“Those who have broken the laws have to face legal action. If we do not act on them, it is the fault of the administration.

“But I stress that using legal action will be our last resort,’’ he said.

He told reporters this yesterday after taking over duties from Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek, who has been appointed Youth and Sports Minister.

Dr Rais, who is the former foreign minister, said he would study the current circumstances and find ways to work closer with private media groups and bloggers.

For this, he said a seminar on the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 and Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission Act 1998 would be organised for journalists and bloggers.

The seminar will enable them to know the dos and don’ts under the acts, he said.

He said combining information and communications under one ministry would enable better efforts in enforcing the two laws.

“We want them to know that we have to take action if something happens,’’ he said, adding that the Bar Council would be invited to help organise the event.

Dr Rais also called on the private broadcast media stations to be pro-active in helping to develop the society and country.

He said some private television and radio stations had failed to adhere to laws that required them to play patriotic songs.

“Most of them are more concerned in making profit,’’ he said.

Dr Rais, who was the information minister from 1984 to 1986, said he would look into the contents of programmes provided by RTM and do the necessary rescheduling to attract more young viewers.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

A precedent has been set

When I did my law studies some years ago, there was one important thing I learned about constitutional law, and that is the separation of power which have become buzz words these days. The judiciary, the executive and the legislatives operates independently as this would in some form act as a check and balance should disputes arise. But in the recent case, where five judges pronounced that the Speaker of the Perak Assembly has erred in suspending Zamry and six others, it would now appear that the judiciary had encroached into the realm of the legislature despite the fact that it is clearly stated in the state constitution that the speaker's decision cannot be brought before the court.

Since a precedent has been set, YB Gobind Singh Deo, MP for Puchong, has decided he would sue the Speaker of the House in Parliament for suspending him for one year as a result of harsh words used against Najib pertaining to the Altantuya case.

Following is the report from the MalaysianInsider:

The Federal Court's ruling last week overturning a decision made by an elected state assembly speaker crossed the boundaries separating the powers between the judiciary and the legislature and has churned up a new challenger.

Suspended Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo, plans to sue Dewan Rakyat Speaker, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia for his ruling last month barring him from taking part in Parliament.

Fondly known as the "Little Lion of Puchong" Gobind is set to file his suit in the High Court here at 11 am tomorrow, his father and DAP Chairman, Karpal Singh, told reporters here today.

Karpal appeared to relish the chance to challenge the Speaker's decision. The Bukit Gelugor MP has often found himself on the receiving end of Pandikar Amin's unwanted attention.

"He's got a precedent. They started it." noted Karpal.

Gobind was suspended for one year from March 16 without an MP's allowances and benefits after an outburst inside Parliament involving the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

The fiery first-term lawmaker had allegedly linked Najib to a highly sensationalised murder case involving a Mongolian model, Altantuya Shaariibuu, whose remains were found in a jungle clearing in nearby Shah Alam years ago.

Sultan and Nizar:: What actually transpired during the meeting

The NutGraph reported ...

PETALING JAYA, 21 April 2009: Sultan Azlan Shah did not cite any reasons, not even constitutional grounds, for not dissolving the Perak state assembly, according to an affidavit filed by embattled Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin.

The affidavit, which was filed today at the Kuala Lumpur High Court registry, said Nizar made several arguments about why the state assembly should be dissolved following the resignation of three assemblypersons from the Pakatan Rakyat. However, the ruler merely declared that Nizar had to resign without giving any reasons for his decision.

"Right after I had made all my arguments, the sultan looked up at me and His Royal Highness declared that he was not going to dissolve the state assembly, and that I, as the menteri besar, should resign," the affidavit said.

Nizar was describing his meeting with Sultan Azlan Shah on 5 Feb 2009, a day after he had formally met with the ruler to request for the dissolution of the state assembly.

During the earlier meeting on 4 April, Nizar presented the pre-signed resignation letters of the three assemblypersons, who were uncontactable at that point and arewidely believed to have defected to the Barisan Nasional (BN).

The three were Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR)'s Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang) and Mohd Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering), and the DAP's Hee Yit Foong (Jelapang) who subsequently became independents "friendly" to the BN.

Nizar said that during his meeting with Sultan Azlan Shah on 4 April, he requested for a dissolution in order to avoid a "deadlock" in the state assembly and in the state's administration.

"I also noted that a dissolution would give the Perak people the right to an election, and for them to legitimately give a new mandate to the government," Nizar said.

Nizar said Sultan Azlan Shah then said he would study the request and contact him. "His Royal Highness then said to me, 'InnaAllaha maa Sobirin (God is with those who are patient)' with a smile while shaking both his hands."

Nizar then presented the draft document of a declaration of the dissolution of the state assembly, on which the sultan remained silent.

"I stress that during my audience with His Royal Highness, I never mentioned or informed or suggested to the sultan that there was a loss of confidence in me as the menteri besar by a majority of the assembly.

"I also never suggested to His Royal Highness to dissolve the state assembly in accordance with Article XVI (6) of the state constitution," Nizar said.

Nizar added that Sultan Azlan Shah also never mentioned these two matters during their meeting.

Nizar's affidavit was filed to refute an affidavit by Perak legal adviser Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid, which said that the ruler had cited the constitution when directing Nizar to resign.

Zambry Ahmad Kamal's affidavit was in support of the affidavit by BN-installed Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir.

On 5 Feb Nizar said when Sultan Azlan Shah informed him of his decision on 5 Feb, he spent 15 minutes arguing against the decision.

Among others, Nizar said, a dissolution would demonstrate that the ruler was fair and nonpartisan, and this would reflect on the principles of a constitutional monarch and democracy.

"I also reminded the sultan that history has shown that in countries such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Egypt and Iran, where the monarchy was partisan and ignored the people's wishes, the institution of royalty was eventually threatened and declined."

Nizar also reminded Sultan Azlan Shah about the letter signed by 31 Pakatan Rakyat assemblypersons indicating their support for him as menteri besar after the March 2008 elections.

These arguments, however, did not change Sultan Azlan Shah's mind, to which Nizar then said to the ruler, "Ampun Tuanku, patik pohon sembah derhaka (forgive me your Highness, I humbly beg to disagree)."

Nizar then kissed the ruler's hand, and Sultan Azlan Shah left the room without saying a word.

On that morning, Sultan Azlan Shah also met with Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Perak BN deputy chairperson Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, who asked for the ruler's consent to form the new state government.

Sultan Azlan ShahThe ruler subsequently met with all 28 assemblypersons from the BN and the three independents to ascertain if Nizar still commanded the majority of the assembly's support.

Nizar was then called to the palace for the sultan's decision to be made known to him.

On 13 Feb, Nizar filed an application for a judicial review, in challenging Zambry's appointment by the sultan as menteri besar.

Nizar also sought several declarations regarding the interpretation of Article 16(6) of the Perak constitution.

In his application, Nizar claims he is the state's legitimate chief executive on the grounds that there was no dissolution of the assembly, no motion of no-confidence against him, and he had not resigned from the post.

He also issued a writ of quo warranto asking Zambry to show cause by what authority he was occupying the post of menteri besar.

The case has been slated for hearing at the Kuala Lumpur High Court on 23 April.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Nga Kor Ming recites Quranic verses again

During a recent ceramah in Gombak, Perak DAP leader, Nga Kor Ming, took centre-stage reciting some verses from the Koran. This was despite the fact that a police report has been lodged against him by the Malay Unity Action Front. However,PAS spiritual leader, Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, was present and was seen to be nodding in approval each time Kor Ming recited the verses.

I wonder whether any MCA, Gerakan or SUPP blokes could do the same?

RTD and MACC to sign an MOU on graft??

Aisehman has this to say ... this is another joke

The Road Transport Department (JPJ) signed a memorandum of understanding with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) yesterday to stamp out corruption and enhance integrity among its staff members.

As part of measures to rid the agency of corruption, Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat said, the MACC would assist JPJ in carrying out background checks on officers who were qualified for promotion. [The Malaysian Insider]

Fight corruption need MOU, meh?

Where in the world have you heard of an anti-corruption body signing an agreement with a corruption-ridden body to stamp out corruption?

Only in Malaysia.

Under the law, MACC does not need permission to turn JPJ upside down, if it has to, to root out corruption.

In fact, the department is obliged to bend over for any probe MACC feels necessary.

Maybe what JPJ seeks via the MOU is for the MACC to be a bit “understanding” if and when it finds evidence of graft in the department.

You think I’m being unfair here?

Read this:

RTD director-general Datuk Solah Mat Hassan said the pact with MACC dealt with preventing bribery as part of the department’s internal controls although the commission still has its investigative powers.

We also have an understanding that if we receive a report from a member of the public, we will do our own investigation and if the investigations need a higher level of expertise, we will alert the MACC and they will conduct their own investigations,” he said … [The Malaysian Insider]

So what happens if members of the public report incidences of graft directly to the MACC?

Does the MACC then hand over the report to the JPJ for it to conduct investigations on its own, as per MOU, and wait for the outcome?

Does not the law require MACC to launch its own investigation when there is a report lodged with it?

You say there will be separate investigations? Then where is the need for an MOU?

Man, I will not be surprised if after this, there is a rush to sign MOUs with MACC.

THERE IS also some sort of MOU, though not a formal one, between UMNO and MACC.

Read this to find out more.

The Bernama article argues that “perhaps it is time for Umno members to choose the stiffer of the two penalties [under the UMNO Code of Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act] if they are serious about cleaning up the party of political graft”.

What are the penalties?

Those found guilty under Section 10(b)(aa) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997, can be jailed up to 20 years and fined five times the value of the gratification, or a maximum of RM10,000, whichever is higher, upon conviction.

However, under the party’s Code of Ethics, Umno members who are found guilty of abusing their power which includes money politics will find themselves losing their party posts, being suspended or losing their rights as a member, among other things, with a right to appeal.

Gee, that’s a tough one, but if it were me, I would pick the Code of Ethics any day.

SO WHAT happened to People First and Performance Now, jib?

Never mind.

It is getting clearer by the day that such things were too much to expect in the first place.

Geronimo's take: Both MACC and RTD are government bodies. Remember MACC is not independent. Therefore, if both are government bodies, then why the need for MOU? It really boggles one's mind.

Koh Tsu Koon, did you really mean it?

One of the politicians I admired was Koh Tsu Koon. When he finally dawned upon him that he had lost Penang to the DAP, he graciously called up Lim Guan Eng to contratulate him. On the day when LGE took the oath of office as the Chief Minister, he and his wife were also in attendance to witness the ceremony. What a gentleman!

As the months went by, the typical BN virus have got back into him, and one of those things, taking pot-shots at LGE and his team. He even back-track on promises made by him.

This is what fellow blogger, Lulu, has to say:

"When the announcement came that Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon [KTK for short cos this is way too panjang for me to type every time], the former Chief Minister of Penang who kalah-ed teruk to a first time candidate in the 2008 elections, would be made a minister via the senator-ship role, Lulu and many others were taken by surprise. Hadn't this KTK honourably proclaimed during the run-up to the GE that if he loses, he would not take up a Senator post to make it into cabinet?

KTK cleared the air yesterday.
According the Malaysiakini,

He also dismissed talks, mostly emanating from Penang, that he had said before the last general election that he would not join the cabinet through an appointment as a senator if he was defeated.

"I did not say I will not do that. I only said that I would prefer to be elected rather than appointed," he clarified today.

Lulu looked up where the misunderstanding came from,
and Lulu was shocked to find out that it was from the Star! the Star which is MCA's mouthpiece. The MCA which thinks that it should be an MCA man as Chief Minister in Penang since they had more assemblyman. The MCA which does not exactly love Gerakan, especially in Penang.

Was the Star being mischevious in putting up this piece of news on election day last year?

Did the Star on Mar 7th know that KTK was going to lose, and published this piece so that he cannot return even as a Senator?
did the Star think that they were helping KTK by impressing upon the voters that if the Batu Kawan voters didnt vote for KTK, it would be the end of the road for him, hopefully convincing them to vote for him. [never mind that the voters went to the ballot box knowing that and still did not vote KTK, causing him to KTK still kalah teruk by a margin of 9,485 votes]

if it is the former, or even the latter, Lulu thinks KTK should sue the Star. Currently, lots of people, especially the Penangites, remember what KTK has vowed. And everyone is laughing at him, thinking that he is not just a loser, but an untrustworty loser.
He should sue them or at least serve them legal papers demanding a retraction
so that he can get his maruah back.

Poor misunderstood KTK.

Anyway, he is now a Minister via his appointment as a senator. Like Uncle Lim would describe him as a "back-door minister".

Monday, April 20, 2009

Bukit Aman's Malaysia Control Centre (MCC)

Just received this from a close friend and thought you might like to take note of the contact in case you run into any problems with the bad elements in our society.

Have verified the telephone nos. Confirmed it is MCC.
Very efficient. Answered after one ring.

I used these MCC several times in the past and I find them very useful during emergencies. Police cars just came in from different directions within minutes ! Key in these hotline numbers 03-22627555/03-22626555) into your mobile phone.

They may save your life. (Think of Mat Rempit)

Those are the numbers for Bukit Aman's Malaysia Control Centre (MCC), the call centre for all police emergencies. The police are urging Malaysians to have these numbers in their mobile phone.

Bukit Aman Public Relations Superintendent, Mohamad Daud said motorists may help prevent cases like the recent murder of assistant computer engineer Mohamad Nazri Ismail.

He added that even after the crime has occurred, the police could go to the crime scene in the shortest possible time and it may result in the capture of those responsible.

An MCC spokesman said the public from any parts of Malaysia can call the centre to report an emergency anytime. "We will direct the call to the nearest police station for the officers there to handle
the matter," said the spokesman.

Worst of financial crisis is over?

Former U.S. presidential economic adviser: worst of financial crisis is over
Special Report: Boao Forum For Asia 2009

BOAO, Hainan, April 19 (Xinhua) — The worst of the financial crisis is finished, and the world is entering the time when things will get gradually better, John Rutledge, a former U.S. presidential economic advisor, said here Sunday.

He made the remarks during an exclusive interview with Xinhua at the Boao Forum for Asia (BFA) in China’s southern province of Hainan.

The recession in China has already “passed the bottom”, while the recession in the United States is “at the bottom”, he said while describing the current global economic condition.

“The capital markets around the world are recovering very nicely,” he said, adding that the real economy and paycheck have not yet hit the bottom, but “very near bottom”, and will most certainly be improve by the end of the year.

He is more optimistic about the prospect of China’s economy, as he is likely to raise the forecast of China’s economic growth rate in 2009 between 6 percent and 8 percent.

“I think the recent signs suggest the number is too low,” he said, referring to his previous forecast between 5 percent and 6 percent.

In terms of growth, Rutledge thinks China will come back fast, while the United States will revive more slowly.

Rutledge also praised China’s massive stimulus package.

“China has almost entirely aimed at construction and infrastructure. As Wen said, infrastructure will make more productivity later for the economic growth,” he said.

Rutledge pointed out that China’s stimulus package is of great social value, as it is aimed directly at construction in an effort to raise the income of migrant workers.

“They (migrant workers) transfer money they make from rich cities to families in small villages. It’s very important to keep the flow of money to help the less fortunate villages to grow,” he said.

China does not need another stimulus package, as the current one is well-designed, fast, large, and it is aimed at people who “need help most”, he said.

“We can declare victory, I would say,” said Rutledge, noting that the crisis would make integration between Asian countries closer and boost cooperation between governments.

“This is where the stability of the Asian growth machine will be determined,” he said.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Najib : To contest or not to contest, that is the question.

Question: When did a group of politicians and lawmakers who have
presided over billions of ringgit in wastage and leakages and who usurped
power in Perak develop a conscience about prudent spending and democratic

Answer: When they realised the futility of contesting a by-election in Anwar
Ibrahim territory and the danger of allowing the political temperature in
the country to keep on throbbing.

The latest news out of the Barisan Nasional camp is that they may not
contest the Penanti seat in Penang, left vacant by the resignation of
Mohammad Fairus Khairuddin, the incumbent who has been damaged by a
Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission probe and countless complaints of
incompetence and truancy.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said today that if there was a
consensus among BN parties, the ruling coalition may not field a candidate
in the by-election. This is not the first time that the BN has contemplated
giving a free victory to the opposition.

After Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail made way for her husband in
Permatang Pauh last year, similar noises were made by BN politicians,
arguing that they did not want to become pawns in a political game.

Fearful of coming across as cowards, BN fielded Datuk Ariff Shah and he was
trounced by Datuk Seri Anwar. It is almost certain that any candidate BN
puts up in Penanti will be beaten soundly. This state seat is part of the
Permatang Pauh parliamentary constituency.

Voters here have been bribed, cajoled and threatened since 1998 but have
stayed loyal to Anwar and his family.

In addition, the Umno machinery in this constituency is a mess. There are
about three or four warlords here and all of them have been working
furiously to undermine each other.

Under such conditions and given that this is Anwar territory, it would have
been a steep climb for Umno/BN to field a candidate and expect to stop the
Pakatan Rakyat juggernaut from notching its fifth consecutive by-election
victory in Peninsular Malaysia, following Permatang Pauh, Kuala Terengganu,
Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau.

Let's face it, the last thing the new Najib administration needs is another
defeat and another reminder that a significant number of Malaysians support
Pakatan Rakyat. The new leadership wants a change in the news cycle, a drop
in the political temperature and a rolling boulder to stop the opposition

It yearns for a return to the mundane and ordinary. That is why government
lawyers have been pushing the courts to resolve the Perak crisis ASAP.

Perhaps that may explain why the Federal Court moved with unusual haste to
hear two cases related to the power grab.

The BN has attempted to occupy the high ground on the Fairus resignation and
the need for a by-election, arguing that it was a waste of taxpayers' money
and counter to the principles of parliamentary democracy.

Let's examine some of their reasons for challenging the need for a

? The mainstream media went to town detailing the cost of holding
by-elections, saying that the five by-elections cost taxpayers RM33.4
million and making the case that the funds could be better utilised.

There are gaping holes in the argument. RM33.4 million is small change for a
government which is ticked off every year by the Auditor-General for wasting
hundreds of millions on suspect projects. RM33.4 million is small change for
ruling coalition politicians who regularly pad government contracts.

Not surprisingly, the bulk of the RM33.4 million was incurred by the police.
In many of the by-elections, the police contingent outnumbered party workers
on both sides of the political divide.

It is hard to fathom why 6,000 police personnel were stationed in Kuala
Terengganu and Bukit Gantang. The opposition is convinced that the show of
force was meant to intimidate their party workers and dissuade the
electorate from attending political rallies.

Clearly, the number of police personnel could have been reduced to 1,000
personnel in both constituencies and the cost would have been slashed
considerably from the final bill of RM11.5 million in Kuala Terengganu and
RM7 million Bukit Gantang.

? BN politicians also lashed out at PKR for forcing Fairus to resign as
state assemblyman, arguing that it was against the principles of
parliamentary democracy.

A few of them noted that Fairus had betrayed the voters by resigning,
pointing out that once you offer yourself as a candidate, you should be
committed to working for the whole duration to serve the people.

This would have been an acceptable argument had it escaped the lips of
Barack Obama, Tun Dr Ismail or someone with moral standing.

But standing on a pedestal and preaching about high principles is not an
option available to guys who encouraged the defection of three Pakatan
Rakyat lawmakers and then took over power unconstitutionally in Perak.

If principles of parliamentary democracy mattered, then BN leaders should
have given Messrs Hee, Jamaluddin and Osman a tutorial on a simple concept
called loyalty to constituents.

The tutorial would have gone something like this: if you offer yourself as a
candidate on one ticket, you should serve on that ticket for the whole term.

Anwar is pushing for a by-election because once again he has been found
wanting in his choice of candidate.

Like Jamaluddin and Osman, Fairus liked the position but not the concept of
work. Like the two former PKR men, he too is likely to be charged in court
soon with corruption. It would have been untenable for Fairus to remain a
lawmaker with a corruption charge over his head.

The by-election strategy is Anwar's preferred method of replacing the
controversial with the credible.

[Source: The Malaysian Insider]

Another high noon in Perak on May 7 2009?

NOW that a sitting of the Perak legislative assembly sitting has been called
for 7 May, another showdown is expected because it is being convened without
speaker V Sivakumar's consent.

In such a case, constitutional law expert Prof Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi
believes Perak's constitutional crisis is far from over despite how recent
court decisions have appeared to favour Barisan Nasional (BN).

The court has ruled that the three independents from Behrang, Changkat
Jering and Jelapang remain as assemblypersons, while the BN's Menteri Besar
Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and six executive councillors had their
suspensions from the assembly lifted.

"There is still a deadlock because the speaker would not want this sitting
to be held," Shad Saleem tells The Nut Graph.

Notices to Perak assemblypersons that the legislative assembly would convene
on 7 May were issued on 17 April by the state secretary's office.

The sitting has to be held before 13 May, the end of the six-month deadline
since the last assembly was convened in November 2008. Failure to do so
would mean automatic dissolution of the assembly and fresh elections, which
the BN has been trying to avoid since their takeover of the state on 5 Feb.

The likely agenda in the 7 May sitting, since it is being convened by the BN
side, is to pass a motion of confidence on Zambry as menteri besar and to
elect a new speaker to replace Sivakumar.

Shad Saleem says there was once a case in India where a state assembly was
adjourned sine die (indefinitely) as soon as the house sat because the
speaker did not want the sitting held.

"If Sivakumar does the same, then the constitutional crisis continues," Shad
Saleem explains.

The law professor at Universiti Teknologi Mara also adds that "it was an
open question" on whether the assembly secretary could issue the notice
convening the assembly on the orders of Zambry. "Usually, the assembly
secretary acts on the instructions of the speaker."

Shad Saleem says the only solutions apparent to him was to either declare
emergency rule in Perak, or the sultan on the advice of the menteri besar
could prorogue the assembly and then use his royal prerogative to call a new

Deciding course of action

Both the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) and the BN are mum at the moment on what each
will do when the assembly convenes.

Perak Gerakan chief Datuk Chang Ko Youn, who is also a special adviser
appointed to assist Zambry in Chinese Community Affairs, says they are being
advised by the BN's lawyers on the matter.

Meanwhile, Perak DAP chief Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham states PR assemblypersons will
"only act on the instruction of the speaker", but declines to outline the
exact course of action.

Meanwhile, Ngeh, a lawyer, also tells The Nut Graph that the Federal Court's
decision to lift the suspension of Zambry and six excos had no effect as "it
was only an opinion expressed by the court."

"There was no order to quash the speaker's order [to suspend the seven], so
the order is still there. The court's declaration was also wrongly aimed at
the speaker, when the decision on the suspensions was made by the Rights and
Privileges Committee," says Ngeh.

However, Sivakumar chairs the committee.

Reacting to Ngeh's statement, Chang, also a lawyer, says any declaration by
the court is enforceable. "If it is just an expression of opinion, then it's
a bloody waste of time. This is Pakatan - when the judgment is not in their
favour, they say that justice is not being served."

Shad Saleem also supports Chang's position, saying that in any country where
there is rule of law, a court declaration carries weight.

"While it may be technically true that it is a declaration, to say that it
is merely that and therefore non-binding, I think that is a desperate
argument," the law professor says.

On the argument that the court decision breaks the doctrine of separation of
powers between the legislative, executive and judiciary, Chang explains the
more correct term is "checks and balances" instead of "independence" of the
legislative assembly from court action.

"There is no absolute independence, the idea of checks and balances is that
whichever estate exceeds its power can be subject to court action. In this
case, the speaker acted as judge, jury and executioner," Chang said.

The Federal Court ruling against the suspensions on 16 April is a landmark
decision as there are constitutional provisions preventing decisions by the
speaker of a state legislative assembly or parliament from being challenged
in court.

Article 72, Clause (1) of the Federal Constitution clearly states that "the
validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall
not be questioned in any court."

But with the ruling, the court has set a precedent as now the speaker's
decisions and actions can be subject to judicial review.

[Source: Nut Graph]