TINDAKAN Sultan Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah melantik Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir sebagai Menteri Besar baru terus dipertikaikan Pakatan Rakyat walaupun ia dilakukan mengikut Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri Perak. Menteri Luar, Datuk Seri Utama Dr Rais Yatim berpengalaman luas dalam soal perundangan yang juga bekas Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri mengupas krisis itu. Ikuti temu bual beliau dengan Pengarang Berita, Berita Minggu, Rasid Rahaman dan Wartawan, Siti Almizan Aripin.
BOLEH Datuk Seri jelaskan peranan Yang di-Pertuan Agong dan Sultan dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan terutama dalam proses pelantikan Perdana Menteri dan Menteri Besar?
Seseorang Raja khususnya Yang di-Pertuan Agong mempunyai tiga kuasa besar yang tidak boleh diganjak mengikut Perlembagaan. Pertama, melantik seseorang Perdana Menteri mengikut perkara 43 (2a) Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Kedua, sama ada bersetuju atau tidak bersetuju membubarkan Parlimen dan ketiga, menguruskan perkara berkaitan hak-hak keistimewaan atau pun adat istiadat Melayu dan yang berkaitan dengan agama Islam.
Ketiga-tiga kuasa mutlak ini juga ada pada Raja Melayu atau Sultan di negeri-negeri. Selain itu, Yang di-Pertuan Agong juga mempunyai pelbagai fungsi dan kuasa mengikut Perlembagaan termasuk sebagai Ketua Turus Angkatan Ketenteraan. Baginda juga mempunyai hak dan kuasa untuk memberi keampunan kepada pesalah yang kesalahannya berlaku di Wilayah Persekutuan. Hak ini juga ada di negeri-negeri, cuma Sultan tidak ada kuasa atau peranan sebagai Ketua Turus Ketenteraan di negerinya. Kuasa di Perak misalnya melantik seseorang Menteri Besar terletak pada Perkara 16 dan perkara ini ada ceraiannya antara satu hingga enam. Yang penting ialah bagi kita mengetahui kuasa baginda Sultan di Perak melantik Menteri Besar dari kalangan seseorang Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (Adun) Perak yang pada pandangan baginda mempunyai sokongan teramai atau majoriti di Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) terbabit. Bagaimanapun, peruntukan ini ada pada semua negeri. Bagaimanapun yang tidak ada pada semua negeri adalah Klausa 4 perkara 16 di negeri Perak itu yang berbunyi lebih kurang, Sultan mempunyai kuasa melantik seseorang Menteri Besar dari kalangan yang baginda dapati sesuai dan untuk melantik seseorang Menteri Besar di bawah Klausa 4 itu, baginda boleh mengetepikan mana-mana peruntukan Perlembagaan Negeri jika pada pendapat baginda ini sesuai dan berpatutan.
Klausa atau peruntukan inilah yang pada hemat pakar Perlembagaan digunakan oleh Sultan Perak ketika melantik Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir tempoh hari. Seharusnya pelantikan ini tidak dipertikai, tetapi politik sudah mempertikaikannya dan pada masa sama penasihat dan mereka yang bertanggungjawab mengenai Perlembagaan negeri Perak sendiri mungkin berasa terkejut dengan tindakan di luar dugaan itu. Inilah kuasa-kuasa am dan khusus yang ada.
Kenapa pelantikan Menteri Besar Perak terus dipertikaikan?
Politik mempunyai pelbagai mata, tetapi undang-undang mempunyai satu mata. Oleh demikian, politik di Perak yang diasuh oleh Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), DAP dan Pas nampak bahawa dengan peruntukan Klausa 4 tadi, mereka masih mempersoalkan pelantikan Dr Zambry sebagai Menteri Besar. Kononnya pada ketika sama tidak ada ujian penentuan dibuat di DUN untuk menentukan siapa yang mempunyai kedudukan majoriti. Jadi dalam hal majoriti di DUN ini memang menjadi suatu kelaziman bagi mana-mana kuasa legislative (perundangan) untuk menentukan majoriti seseorang atau sesuatu kumpulan. Di Perak, pembangkang terus menduga dengan hujah mereka kononnya Sultan tidak mengendahkan keputusan Dewan. Jadi pihak yang menyebelahi pandangan mereka terus mendesak supaya diadakan undian di Dewan dan menganggap hanya itulah yang sepatutnya diadakan. Tanggapan itu salah sebab menentukan majoriti di DUN hanya salah satu daripada kaedah dan ini diputuskan oleh kes di negeri Sabah pada 1994, Amir Kahar lawan Tun Mustafa. Dan hal ini sudah diterima sebagai hakikat keputusan universal (sejagat). Ia terkandung di dalam pelbagai kes lain juga dan dengan adanya kes di Sabah itu maka jelas bahawa Sultan tidak perlu mengikut kaedah lazim seperti dikatakan oleh pembangkang.
Pada pandangan Datuk Seri siapakah yang berhak bertindak kepada mereka yang mempersoalkan fungsi Sultan?
Kuasa untuk menahan mana-mana pihak daripada menyaman Sultan atau mengheret Sultan, atau menyaman atau mengheret Menteri Besar yang baru, tidak ada. Apatah lagi sejak 1994, pindaan Perlembagaan kepada Perkara 181 sudah dibuat dan pada pindaan itu seseorang Sultan boleh disaman atau sesuatu kesalahan atau salah laku atau atas sesuatu yang sabit dengan kes sivil. Asalkan Pendakwa Raya membenarkannya. Jadi soal dibangkitkan di Perak ini harus diamati dengan baik oleh kerana kita tidak mahu terbabit dengan suasana kita memperli atau memperkecil mahkamah lantaran ada satu dua perbicaraan sekarang yang berlaku di dalam mahkamah yang seharusnya tidak kita pertikaikan perjalanan atau perbicaraan itu. Tetapi soal ini adalah soal majmuk yang seharusnya masyarakat boleh mengambil perhatian mendalam.
Bloggers turut memperkecilkan fungsi Sultan?
Kita lemah dari segi penguatkuasaan undang-undang. Dan apabila saya nyatakan begini, saya tidak fikir ramai yang tidak bersetuju. Majoriti bersetuju apa saya rasakan. Kita ada Akta Hasutan dan Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA). Sama ada puncanya berasaskan kepada radio, televisyen atau blog di dalam internet, ia sama seperti seseorang itu menulis. Sebab niat yang wujud akibat perbuatan itu untuk mewujudkan suasana menghasut atau perasaan syak wasangka hingga menyebabkan perpaduan masyarakat berpecah. Jadi dengan itu, pihak berkuasa harus terus mengambil tindakan mengikut Akta Hasutan atau Kanun Keseksaan atau Akta Polis dan ada beberapa akta lain. Dan tidak semestinya kita guna ISA. Saya cuma bercakap dari hal undang-undang semata-mata. Ini bukan soal hendak mempolitikkan sesuatu isu. Seharusnya, penulis blog ini sudah menerima saman dan juga untuk hadir di mahkamah. Jadi kita bandingkan kalau di beberapa negara jiran, mereka tidak berani menulisnya di blog, kenapa mereka berleluasa di Malaysia. Sebab mereka tahu kita tidak menjalankan tugas asas untuk menyusul sesuatu tindakan mengikut undang-undang.
Apa yang membezakan Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri Perak dengan negeri lain?
Perbezaannya ada pada beberapa aspek. Salah satu daripadanya adalah kuasa diraja. Kuasa diraja negeri Perak yang ada di bawah 16 (4) tadi didapati hanya ada di beberapa negeri. Dua daripadanya ialah Perlis di bawah Sesyen 39 dan Terengganu di bawah kuasa lama 1911 yang pada tahun 1948 dipinda dan menjadi kuasa mutlak bagi Sultan Terengganu. Dalam proses melantik seseorang Menteri Besar, Sultan di ketiga-tiga negeri ini berkuasa penuh untuk menentukan siapa yang baginda rasa wajar. Jadi kuasa ini dianggap kuasa tradisional. Kuasa turun-temurun dunia Melayu ini lagi dan selepas Inggeris mengaturkan pada 1948, di bawah Perjanjian Persekutuan Malaya 1948. Semua negeri Melayu mempunyai beberapa bidang pindaan kepada Perlembagaan yang ada. Jadi bagi negeri Perak, Perlis dan Terengganu khususnya mempunyai kuasa-kuasa itu. Kuasa untuk memberi pengampunan semuanya ada. Kuasa untuk menentukan Raja itu boleh menjalankan tugas dalam bidang tradisi ada di beberapa kelompok kuasa di Negeri-Negeri Melayu Yang Bersekutu, tetapi tidak ada di dalam Negeri-negeri Melayu Tidak Bersekutu.
Boleh Datuk Seri berikan contoh kes lain yang boleh dibuat rujukan?
Tidak seratus peratus. Tetapi nasnya banyak. Misalnya dalam kes Adigbenro Akintola dari Nigeria ditentukan di situ bahawa dalam menentukan siapa yang boleh menjadi Gabenor harus mempunyai suara ramai. Jadi nas seperti itu juga dipakai di dalam kes Stephen Kalong Ningkan 1966 di Sarawak. Atas kes-kes Komanwel inilah muncul satu corpus undang-undang yang merujuk kepada keputusan DUN menentukan siapa yang mempunyai kuasa majoriti harus diikuti. Kes negeri Perak, keadaan itu telah dibatalkan oleh Klausa 4. Sebab itu Sultan Perak selepas memanggil semua Adun termasuk Adun Bota, Datuk Nasarudin Hashim, Yee Yit Foong (Adun Jelapang), Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Adun Behrang) dan Mohd Osman Jailu (Adun Changkat Jering). Baginda berpendapat suara ramai sebenarnya sudah ada pada Barisan Nasional (BN). Sebab itu baginda bersetuju ambil Dr Zambry sebagai Menteri Besar. Kewajaran Speaker gantung Menteri Besar dan 6 DUN daripada menghadiri Persidangan DUN Negeri Perak? Kuasa itu tidak boleh diikuti sebenarnya sebab prosiding itu tidak dibuat dalam Dewan. Ia boleh dipertikaikan dan tidak seharusnya Menteri Besar akur kepada arahan itu. Sekiranya arahan itu dibuat dalam Dewan dan diluluskan usulnya di bawah Peraturan Tetap 18 atau 89 barulah menjadi perkara yang boleh dikuatkuasakan. Tetapi seseorang Speaker yang Dewannya pun tidak ada, beliau tidak ada kuasa menggantung Menteri Besar dan enam Exco daripada menghadiri persidangan DUN Perak. Sebab Speaker hanya boleh bertindak dalam Dewan. Begitu juga di bawah pokok, bukan Dewan. Seharusnya pihak berkuasa menghalang perhimpunan itu, tetapi ia tidak dihalang. Di situlah saya mempertikaikan cara kita mentadbirkan kuasa undang-undang di negara ini yang sudah berlainan sangat ketika saya menjadi Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri dulu (tahun 1977-1978).
Ada pihak menyatakan Speaker DUN Perak tidak perlu mendapatkan perkenan Sultan untuk mengadakan persidangan baru kerana persidangan terdahulu hanya ditangguhkan, bukan ditamatkan. Boleh Datuk Seri komen?
Itu pandangan biasa namanya. Pandangan yang tidak berasaskan kepada undang-undang. Tetapi jikalau seseorang itu meneliti perkara 36 dan melihat kehendak dan kuasa Sultan di situ, ialah bahawa Sultan mempunyai kuasa itu. Kita tidak boleh hanya menyatakan oleh kerana ini hanyalah kesinambungan kepada Dewan dulu. Sedangkan Menteri Besar sudah bertukar, Exco sudah bertukar, Menteri Besar lama sudah keluar daripada bidang tugas dan bidang kuasanya. Ia sudah menjadi suatu keadaan baru. Sebab itu perlunya kita mendapat arahan daripada Sultan. Sebenarnya ketika Dewan tidak bersidang, kuasa Sultan tetap ada. Sama ada hendak mengarah Dewan bersidang atau tidak. Ini perlu difahami semua orang yang berkaitan dengan DUN. Speaker tidak boleh berbuat sesuka hati di negeri begitu juga di Parlimen. Jika Yang di-Pertuan Agong menyatakan baginda hendak menangguhkan Dewan, jadi ini kuasa baginda. Tindakan Speaker DUN Negeri yang mengadakan persidangan di bawah pokok dari sudut undang-undang? Pertama, istilah Dewan mengikut amalan Parlimentary Practice Commonwealth termasuk yang diamalkan di House of Common (Dewan Rakyat) dan di House of Lord (Dewan Negara). Ia institusi berdinding, beratap dan menggunakan suatu bangunan. Jadi apabila seseorang itu bersidang di bawah pokok, ia bukan bersidang di dalam Dewan. Tidak ada rumahnya jadi mengikut Sesyen 27, seharusnya kita sudah boleh bertindak, tapi kenapa dibiarkan? Soalan ini saya tidak boleh jawab. Jadi saya berterus terang menyatakan tindakan-tindakan preventive (pencegahan) kita tidak cukup. Dan mesyuarat itu tidak sah. Adakah tindakan pencegahan itu perlu tunggu arahan menteri sebelum polis boleh bertindak? Tanpa menyinggung mana-mana perasaan, polis sendiri boleh bertindak. Sebab ini bukan berada di bawah cabang keselamatan. Ini kesalahan awam biasa. Ada tiga undang-undang berkaitan dengan tindakan awam. Pertama Akta Polis, kedua Akta Ketenteraman Awam dan ketiga ialah akta bersabit dengan mesyuarat atau berkaitan dengan Dewan Parlimen misalnya. Jadi mereka terbabit boleh diambil tindakan mengikut Akta Polis dan Akta Ketenteraman Awam 1959. Jadi, jika persidangan dibuat tidak sah, bagaimana dengan tiga usul diluluskan oleh DUN di bawah pokok? Ia juga tidak sah. Satu, prosedurnya ialah Setiausaha Dewan harus menyediakan notis sekurang-kurang tujuh hari atau menurut kehendak Speaker boleh disingkatkan. Dalam persidangan itu, Setiausaha Dewan tidak terbabit. Proses itu tidak dilakukan. Yang kedua, mengikut Perkara 36 Perlembagaan negeri Perak, Sultan hendaklah memanggil dari semasa ke semasa sidang DUN. Bermakna masa tertentu, Sultan harus dimaklumkan lantaran konsep DUN di negeri-negeri, pertama Sultan dan kedua DUN. Jika di Parlimen, konsep Parlimen ialah pertama Yang di-Pertuan Agong dan kedua Dewan Rakyat dan ketiga Dewan Negara. Jadi di negeri, Speaker tidak boleh bertindak sesuka hati, sekurang-kurangnya setiausaha mesti berfungsi dan yang paling wajar Sultan perlu memainkan peranannya. Sultan juga boleh meminta supaya sidang diadakan. Menteri Besar juga mengikut petisyen di bawah kuat kuasa peraturan Dewan Negeri Perak boleh meminta Dewan diadakan. Timbalan Speaker pun boleh sekiranya Speaker mempunyai alasan, dan boleh buat petisyen mengikut Sesyen 8 Peraturan negeri Perak.
Presiden Majlis Peguam Malaysia, Datuk Ambiga Sreenivasan menyatakan kekebalan Speaker DUN termaktub dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan tidak ada akta atau undang-undang lain yang boleh mencabarnya. Boleh Datuk Seri komen?
Mereka yang cakap kebal ini sebenarnya kebal dari apa. Itu saya fikir satu terma yang sengaja diwujudkan untuk mengelirukan pelbagai pihak. Speaker tidak kebal dari segi undang-undang dan juga prosedur. Pertama, seseorang Speaker jika tidak mengikut prosedur, fungsinya terbatal. Speaker beroperasi di dalam Dewan bukan di luar Dewan. Speaker mesti menerusi Setiausaha Dewan, Speaker tidak boleh mengarahkan dengan sendiri. Kerja-kerja Speaker mengadakan persidangan dan membubarkan Dewan mesti mendapat kelulusan Sultan sebab erti DUN, tampuknya ialah Sultan dan bawahnya DUN. Seterusnya, jika Speaker menyalahi keempat-empat prosedur ini, Speaker boleh dihadapkan kepada Jawatankuasa Keistimewaan atau Committee of Privileges apabila bersidang nanti. Jadi pandangan terbaik adalah oleh kerana BN sekarang sudah pun majoriti selepas dibuat perkiraan tempoh hari, kenapa tidak berani mengadakan Dewan, lantik Speaker baru. Di bawah Perkara 39 Perlembagaan Perak, ada peruntukan bagi Timbalan Speaker.
Kenapa ini tidak berlaku?
Inilah masalahnya. Kita kena berani sekarang melaksanakan tuntutan undang-undang. Paling penting, Perak sekarang ini dinasihati oleh satu kumpulan. Kita harus meneliti adakah kumpulan ini memadai bagi perjuangan negeri Perak menghadapi cabaran sekarang. Tapi ini bukan bagi saya untuk jawab. Terserah kepada pihak negeri. Kita mesti mencari alternatif yang praktikal jadi mesti orang yang betul-betul memahami prosedur politik dan juga prosedur dalaman legislative (perundangan) dan juga peraturan menguatkuasa undang-undang dalam DUN.
Adakah kerajaan baru ini boleh berfungsi sebagai kerajaan negeri?
Sebenarnya boleh dan yang terbaik ialah memberi legitimacy (kesahihan) kepadanya di DUN sekarang. Sebab BN sudah majoriti. BN sudah ada 31 Adun termasuk tiga DUN Bebas. Apa yang hendak ditakutkan. Cuma soalan saya, betulkah yang empat orang itu tidak berubah hatinya. Bak kata pepatah, anak sungai lagikan berubah ini pula hati orang. Jadi sekarang mahu tanya balik. Kalau betul kita majoriti, sebaik-baiknya dibuat petisyen di bawah Peraturan 8 ataupun 18 di dalam kaedah peraturan tetap, diadakan sidang. Speaker kalau tidak hadir pun tidak apa. Sebab petisyen boleh dibantu oleh arahan daripada Sultan mengadakan sidang. Menteri Besar sekarang pun boleh memohon menerusi petisyen, di situ lantik Speaker baru.
Ada pihak terutama Pakatan Rakyat menganggap masalah kecelaruan politik di Perak boleh diselesaikan jika DUN dibubarkan bagi membolehkan pilihan raya negeri diadakan. Komen Datuk Seri?
Itu pilihan mereka. Kalau hendak buat begitu, kini terpulang kepada Sultan Perak. Sekarang setahu saya baginda tidak bersetuju, tidak berkenan untuk bubar Dewan. Kalau Sultan tidak berkenan bubar Dewan, sebaik-baiknya kita memilih Speaker baru. Itu jalannya. Kita gunakan institusi DUN bagi memberi cop legitimacy kepada kerajaan negeri sekarang. Di situ kita boleh dengar petisyen daripada Menteri Besar, petisyen daripada Setiausaha misalnya dan kita buat usul dan diterima. Dan saya percaya akan lulus sebab majoritinya ada, iaitu sekurang-kurangnya satu. Ini yang terbaik.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Power of speaker to convene legislative assembly
By Tommy Thomas
MARCH 2 – I have been asked to advise whether the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Perak was entitled in law to convene the Legislative Assembly on 3rd March 2009.
Ultimately, the issue turns on whether the last meeting of the Assembly in November 2008 was prorogued (“di-berhentikan”) or adjourned (“di-tangguhkan”). If it was prorogued, only the Sultan of Perak (“HRH”) can summon the Assembly: if it was adjourned, then the Speaker can convene.
According to my instructions, what was adjourned sine die in November 2008, was the Third Sitting of the First Session of the 12th Legislative Assembly of Perak. This opinion is written on that factual basis.
A. THE STATE CONSTITUTION OF PERAK
2. The starting point in the analysis is the Laws of the Constitution of Perak, and in particular Articles 36 and 44. Article 36 deals with the summoning, prorogation and dissolution of the Legislative Assembly. Article 36 (1) and (2) read as follows:- “(i) His Royal Highness shall from time to time summon the Legislative Assembly and shall not allow six months to lapse between the last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session. (ii) His Royal Highness may prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly”. It should be noted that Article 36 does not deal with adjournment of the Assembly. Article 44 (1) states that the Legislative Assembly shall regulate its own procedure and may make Standing Rules and Orders for “the regulation and orderly conduct of its own proceedings and the conduct of business”. Article 44 (1) recognises the well settled constitutional principle that the Assembly is the master of its procedure, and its sovereignty over its internal affairs cannot be questioned by any external body.
B. THE STANDING ORDERS
3. Pursuant to Article 44 (1) of the State Constitution, the First Meeting of the Second Session of the Seventh State Legislative Assembly of Perak passed Standing Orders on 23rd March 1988. Standing Order (“SO”) 88 is the definition order. The expressions “meeting”, “session” and “sitting” are defined in SO 88 as follows:- “ ‘meeting’ means any sitting or sittings of the Assembly when the Assembly first meets after being summoned at any time and terminating when the Assembly is adjourned for more than fourteen days or sine die at the conclusion of a sessions”; “ ‘session means the sittings of the Assembly commencing when the Assembly first meets after being constituted, or after its prorogation or dissolution at any time, and terminating when the Assembly is prorogued or dissolved without having been prorogued”; “ ‘sitting’ means a period during which the Assembly is sitting continuously (apart from any suspension) without adjournment, and includes any period during which the Assembly is in Committee”.
A review of the definitions given to the 3 terms would indicate that a meeting is the shortest period, followed by a sitting, while a session is of the longest duration.
4. It is significant that the definitions of these expressions in SO 88 reflect their ordinary meaning as the Oxford English Reference Dictionary (2nd Ed. 1996) indicates:- “adjourn: put off, postpone, break off with the intention of resuming later. prorogue: discontinue the meetings (of Parliament) without dissolving it. sitting: a time during which an assembly is engaged in business. meeting: persons assembled.
session: a period during which meetings of assembly are regularly held.” 5. Adjournment is the subject matter of 3 Standing Orders. Pursuant to SO 15 and 16, upon a motion for adjournment after the completion of all business in a sitting, Mr Speaker is entitled to adjourn the Assembly. The first pre-condition for such adjournment is the completion of all business. What is thus being adjourned is a sitting, and not a session ? a session can consist of numerous sittings. When an adjournment motion made under SO 15 and 16 is carried, Mr Speaker declares “That this Assembly do now adjourn”. The adjournment referred to in SO 17 is entirely different because it entitles Mr Speaker (with the support of the majority of members) to change the order of business of a meeting of the Assembly by permitting a “definite matter of urgent public importance” to be debated on an urgent basis. Thus SO 17 is not relevant for present purposes.
6. It appears as if no express SO gives Mr Speaker the power to recall the sitting of an Assembly that was adjourned by him, as occurred in November 2008. Because what was adjourned in November 2008 was only a sitting, and not a session, what is clear is that HRH’s power to summon does not at present arise because Article 36 (1) of the State Constitution refers to “one session” and the “next session”. If it is not a question of the discretion of HRH to summon a session, then by implication only, Mr Speaker has such power with regard to sittings and meetings of the Assembly. In the event of doubt regarding his power, Mr Speaker can rely on the residuary powers conferred on him under SO 90. Further, a decision or ruling by Mr Speaker on his power is final and not open to appeal pursuant to SO 43 and 89 : only a substantive motion passed in the House can review it.
C. THE BRITISH PRACTICE
7. SO 90 provides that when the Standing Orders are silent on any matter, Mr. Speaker may give directions, “and in giving such direction Mr. Speaker shall have regard to the usages of Commonwealth Parliamentary practice so far as such usages can be applied to the proceedings of the Assembly”. Accordingly, reliance can be made on the practice and procedure of the British Parliament, which is the mother of all Parliaments. Erskine May ’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament is the leading text on the subject in the Commonwealth. I have reviewed the relevant commentary in Chapter 13 in its 23rd Edition (2004). 8. According to the learned authors of Erskine May (all of whom are clerks of the House of Commons):-
“ ‘A Parliament’, in the sense of a parliamentary period, is a period not exceeding 5 years which may be regarded as a cycle beginning and ending with a proclamation. A session is the period of time between the meeting of a Parliament, whether after a prorogation or a dissolution, and its prorogation. During the course of a session either House (Commons or Lords) may adjourn itself on its own motion to such date as it pleases. Sessions are of indeterminate length but …….usually run from October or November of one year to October or November of the next. The period between the prorogation of Parliament and its reassembly in a new session is termed a ‘recess’, while the period between the adjournment of either House and the resumption of its sitting is properly called an ‘adjournment’ (although in practice the word ‘recess’ is generally used in this sense also).
A prorogation terminates a session; an adjournment is an interruption in the course of a single session.” (my emphasis)(See Page 272)
9. In a discussion under the caption “Prorogation and Adjournment”, Erskine May states:- “The prorogation of Parliament is a prerogative act of the Crown. Just as Parliament can commence its deliberations only at the time appointed by the Queen, so it cannot continue them any longer than she pleases. But each House exercises its right to adjourn itself independently of the Crown and of the other House… (my emphasis) (Page 274)
The difference between prorogation and adjournment becomes clearer from a practical perspective by considering their effect. The effect of a prorogation is to suspend all business, including committee proceedings, until Parliament is summoned again, and to end the sittings of Parliament. Further, all pending proceedings are quashed. An adjournment does not have the same effect on parliamentary proceedings as does a prorogation. Upon reassembling, each House proceeds to transact the business previously appointed, and all proceedings are resumed at the stage at which they were left before the adjournment. Erskine May also discusses the recall of Parliament during adjournment. “When Parliament is dispersed through the adjournment of both Houses its reassembly can be effected either by proclamation or under powers specifically conferred by each House on its Speaker”. (Page 277).
10. A similar distinction between prorogation and adjournment is made in Halsbury Laws of England (4th Ed, 1997 Reissue) in Vol. 34 : see Paragraphs 720 to 727. In Paragraph 720 under the heading “Power of each House to adjourn”, Halsbury states: “Each House of Parliament has the power to adjourn its sittings for any period of time to be determined by an Order of the House. Power is given by standing orders of the two Houses to the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker respectively, if they are satisfied that the public interest requires it, to summon the Houses to meet on an earlier date than that to which they have been adjourned”. (my emphasis)
11. The practical advantages of an adjournment over a prorogation are discussed by Eric Taylor in “The House of Commons at Work” (9th Ed. 1979) as follows:- “Since the beginning of the last war it has been thought better not to prorogue on 31st July, after all, but merely to adjourn the House for the summer, the reason being partly that it is more difficult to summon the House together again quickly after a prorogation, and during an adjournment the Speaker has power to summon it in case of emergency. This expedient was felt to be necessary during the uneasy war and post-war years. It is also useful to have a week or so after the Recess to clear up odd business. In any case the result was that the House was, and still is solemnly prorogue one day, and solemnly opened again by the Queen a day or two later, there being now no intervening Christmas holiday. (my emphasis) It may occur to the reader to ask why Parliament is prorogued at all, and why the House should not remain in Session from the time that it is elected until the time that it is dissolved, and a new Parliament is elected. The natural answer will be that Parliament likes to “clear its books”, just as a business firm clears its book at the end of a financial year. All Bills which have not reached the statute books by the end of the Session are killed automatically by prorogation. All notices of motions disappear from the Order Paper. It is a drastic but quite salutary process.”(Page 52)
12. These practical aspects are also considered in a leading British constitutional law text. In “Constitutional and Administrative Law” by de Smith and Brazier (8th Ed, 1998), the following commentary appears:- “Sessions: prorogation and adjournment. It is the invariable custom for the life of a Parliament to be divided up into a number of sessions. These are usually of about one year’s duration, though there is no fixed practice……..; ……Nowadays the Commons sit for about 180 days altogether during a calendar year. Each House determines, on the Government’s initiative, on which dates it will adjourn and reassemble…….;
…..A session of Parliament is terminated by prorogation, a prerogative act; a short formal speech is made on behalf of the Queen, summarizing the work done during the session, and the Parliament stands prorogued till a named dated, which (unless prorogation precedes a dissolution) will be only a few days later, when a new session will be opened by the reading of the Queen’s speech…….; …..The reason why Parliament is adjourned, instead of standing prorogued, in midsummer is strictly practical. In the first place, if it becomes necessary to recall a prorogued Parliament to deal with a matter of unexpected urgency, a royal proclamation has to be issued. It is simpler and may be more expeditious to reassemble an adjourned Parliament; this can be done by the Speaker and the Lord Chancellor acting on the Prime Minister’s quest…...” (my emphasis) (Page 230)
13. It is thus plain and obvious that the Speaker in the elected House of the British Parliament, the House of Commons, has the discretion to recall the House during an adjournment, which is factually a different category from prorogation. Thus, the Speaker of the Perak Legislative Assembly is entitled under SO 90 to “have regard to the usages of Commonwealth Parliamentary practice”, in this case, the settled practice in the House of Commons, as to his own power to convene a sitting of the Assembly during adjournment.
D. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, in my opinion, Mr Speaker is lawfully empowered to convene the Fourth Sitting of the First Session of the 12th Legislative Assembly of Perak on 3rd March 2009. Dated this 1st day of March, 2009.
TommyThomas – Malaysian Bar Council
MARCH 2 – I have been asked to advise whether the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Perak was entitled in law to convene the Legislative Assembly on 3rd March 2009.
Ultimately, the issue turns on whether the last meeting of the Assembly in November 2008 was prorogued (“di-berhentikan”) or adjourned (“di-tangguhkan”). If it was prorogued, only the Sultan of Perak (“HRH”) can summon the Assembly: if it was adjourned, then the Speaker can convene.
According to my instructions, what was adjourned sine die in November 2008, was the Third Sitting of the First Session of the 12th Legislative Assembly of Perak. This opinion is written on that factual basis.
A. THE STATE CONSTITUTION OF PERAK
2. The starting point in the analysis is the Laws of the Constitution of Perak, and in particular Articles 36 and 44. Article 36 deals with the summoning, prorogation and dissolution of the Legislative Assembly. Article 36 (1) and (2) read as follows:- “(i) His Royal Highness shall from time to time summon the Legislative Assembly and shall not allow six months to lapse between the last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session. (ii) His Royal Highness may prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly”. It should be noted that Article 36 does not deal with adjournment of the Assembly. Article 44 (1) states that the Legislative Assembly shall regulate its own procedure and may make Standing Rules and Orders for “the regulation and orderly conduct of its own proceedings and the conduct of business”. Article 44 (1) recognises the well settled constitutional principle that the Assembly is the master of its procedure, and its sovereignty over its internal affairs cannot be questioned by any external body.
B. THE STANDING ORDERS
3. Pursuant to Article 44 (1) of the State Constitution, the First Meeting of the Second Session of the Seventh State Legislative Assembly of Perak passed Standing Orders on 23rd March 1988. Standing Order (“SO”) 88 is the definition order. The expressions “meeting”, “session” and “sitting” are defined in SO 88 as follows:- “ ‘meeting’ means any sitting or sittings of the Assembly when the Assembly first meets after being summoned at any time and terminating when the Assembly is adjourned for more than fourteen days or sine die at the conclusion of a sessions”; “ ‘session means the sittings of the Assembly commencing when the Assembly first meets after being constituted, or after its prorogation or dissolution at any time, and terminating when the Assembly is prorogued or dissolved without having been prorogued”; “ ‘sitting’ means a period during which the Assembly is sitting continuously (apart from any suspension) without adjournment, and includes any period during which the Assembly is in Committee”.
A review of the definitions given to the 3 terms would indicate that a meeting is the shortest period, followed by a sitting, while a session is of the longest duration.
4. It is significant that the definitions of these expressions in SO 88 reflect their ordinary meaning as the Oxford English Reference Dictionary (2nd Ed. 1996) indicates:- “adjourn: put off, postpone, break off with the intention of resuming later. prorogue: discontinue the meetings (of Parliament) without dissolving it. sitting: a time during which an assembly is engaged in business. meeting: persons assembled.
session: a period during which meetings of assembly are regularly held.” 5. Adjournment is the subject matter of 3 Standing Orders. Pursuant to SO 15 and 16, upon a motion for adjournment after the completion of all business in a sitting, Mr Speaker is entitled to adjourn the Assembly. The first pre-condition for such adjournment is the completion of all business. What is thus being adjourned is a sitting, and not a session ? a session can consist of numerous sittings. When an adjournment motion made under SO 15 and 16 is carried, Mr Speaker declares “That this Assembly do now adjourn”. The adjournment referred to in SO 17 is entirely different because it entitles Mr Speaker (with the support of the majority of members) to change the order of business of a meeting of the Assembly by permitting a “definite matter of urgent public importance” to be debated on an urgent basis. Thus SO 17 is not relevant for present purposes.
6. It appears as if no express SO gives Mr Speaker the power to recall the sitting of an Assembly that was adjourned by him, as occurred in November 2008. Because what was adjourned in November 2008 was only a sitting, and not a session, what is clear is that HRH’s power to summon does not at present arise because Article 36 (1) of the State Constitution refers to “one session” and the “next session”. If it is not a question of the discretion of HRH to summon a session, then by implication only, Mr Speaker has such power with regard to sittings and meetings of the Assembly. In the event of doubt regarding his power, Mr Speaker can rely on the residuary powers conferred on him under SO 90. Further, a decision or ruling by Mr Speaker on his power is final and not open to appeal pursuant to SO 43 and 89 : only a substantive motion passed in the House can review it.
C. THE BRITISH PRACTICE
7. SO 90 provides that when the Standing Orders are silent on any matter, Mr. Speaker may give directions, “and in giving such direction Mr. Speaker shall have regard to the usages of Commonwealth Parliamentary practice so far as such usages can be applied to the proceedings of the Assembly”. Accordingly, reliance can be made on the practice and procedure of the British Parliament, which is the mother of all Parliaments. Erskine May ’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament is the leading text on the subject in the Commonwealth. I have reviewed the relevant commentary in Chapter 13 in its 23rd Edition (2004). 8. According to the learned authors of Erskine May (all of whom are clerks of the House of Commons):-
“ ‘A Parliament’, in the sense of a parliamentary period, is a period not exceeding 5 years which may be regarded as a cycle beginning and ending with a proclamation. A session is the period of time between the meeting of a Parliament, whether after a prorogation or a dissolution, and its prorogation. During the course of a session either House (Commons or Lords) may adjourn itself on its own motion to such date as it pleases. Sessions are of indeterminate length but …….usually run from October or November of one year to October or November of the next. The period between the prorogation of Parliament and its reassembly in a new session is termed a ‘recess’, while the period between the adjournment of either House and the resumption of its sitting is properly called an ‘adjournment’ (although in practice the word ‘recess’ is generally used in this sense also).
A prorogation terminates a session; an adjournment is an interruption in the course of a single session.” (my emphasis)(See Page 272)
9. In a discussion under the caption “Prorogation and Adjournment”, Erskine May states:- “The prorogation of Parliament is a prerogative act of the Crown. Just as Parliament can commence its deliberations only at the time appointed by the Queen, so it cannot continue them any longer than she pleases. But each House exercises its right to adjourn itself independently of the Crown and of the other House… (my emphasis) (Page 274)
The difference between prorogation and adjournment becomes clearer from a practical perspective by considering their effect. The effect of a prorogation is to suspend all business, including committee proceedings, until Parliament is summoned again, and to end the sittings of Parliament. Further, all pending proceedings are quashed. An adjournment does not have the same effect on parliamentary proceedings as does a prorogation. Upon reassembling, each House proceeds to transact the business previously appointed, and all proceedings are resumed at the stage at which they were left before the adjournment. Erskine May also discusses the recall of Parliament during adjournment. “When Parliament is dispersed through the adjournment of both Houses its reassembly can be effected either by proclamation or under powers specifically conferred by each House on its Speaker”. (Page 277).
10. A similar distinction between prorogation and adjournment is made in Halsbury Laws of England (4th Ed, 1997 Reissue) in Vol. 34 : see Paragraphs 720 to 727. In Paragraph 720 under the heading “Power of each House to adjourn”, Halsbury states: “Each House of Parliament has the power to adjourn its sittings for any period of time to be determined by an Order of the House. Power is given by standing orders of the two Houses to the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker respectively, if they are satisfied that the public interest requires it, to summon the Houses to meet on an earlier date than that to which they have been adjourned”. (my emphasis)
11. The practical advantages of an adjournment over a prorogation are discussed by Eric Taylor in “The House of Commons at Work” (9th Ed. 1979) as follows:- “Since the beginning of the last war it has been thought better not to prorogue on 31st July, after all, but merely to adjourn the House for the summer, the reason being partly that it is more difficult to summon the House together again quickly after a prorogation, and during an adjournment the Speaker has power to summon it in case of emergency. This expedient was felt to be necessary during the uneasy war and post-war years. It is also useful to have a week or so after the Recess to clear up odd business. In any case the result was that the House was, and still is solemnly prorogue one day, and solemnly opened again by the Queen a day or two later, there being now no intervening Christmas holiday. (my emphasis) It may occur to the reader to ask why Parliament is prorogued at all, and why the House should not remain in Session from the time that it is elected until the time that it is dissolved, and a new Parliament is elected. The natural answer will be that Parliament likes to “clear its books”, just as a business firm clears its book at the end of a financial year. All Bills which have not reached the statute books by the end of the Session are killed automatically by prorogation. All notices of motions disappear from the Order Paper. It is a drastic but quite salutary process.”(Page 52)
12. These practical aspects are also considered in a leading British constitutional law text. In “Constitutional and Administrative Law” by de Smith and Brazier (8th Ed, 1998), the following commentary appears:- “Sessions: prorogation and adjournment. It is the invariable custom for the life of a Parliament to be divided up into a number of sessions. These are usually of about one year’s duration, though there is no fixed practice……..; ……Nowadays the Commons sit for about 180 days altogether during a calendar year. Each House determines, on the Government’s initiative, on which dates it will adjourn and reassemble…….;
…..A session of Parliament is terminated by prorogation, a prerogative act; a short formal speech is made on behalf of the Queen, summarizing the work done during the session, and the Parliament stands prorogued till a named dated, which (unless prorogation precedes a dissolution) will be only a few days later, when a new session will be opened by the reading of the Queen’s speech…….; …..The reason why Parliament is adjourned, instead of standing prorogued, in midsummer is strictly practical. In the first place, if it becomes necessary to recall a prorogued Parliament to deal with a matter of unexpected urgency, a royal proclamation has to be issued. It is simpler and may be more expeditious to reassemble an adjourned Parliament; this can be done by the Speaker and the Lord Chancellor acting on the Prime Minister’s quest…...” (my emphasis) (Page 230)
13. It is thus plain and obvious that the Speaker in the elected House of the British Parliament, the House of Commons, has the discretion to recall the House during an adjournment, which is factually a different category from prorogation. Thus, the Speaker of the Perak Legislative Assembly is entitled under SO 90 to “have regard to the usages of Commonwealth Parliamentary practice”, in this case, the settled practice in the House of Commons, as to his own power to convene a sitting of the Assembly during adjournment.
D. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, in my opinion, Mr Speaker is lawfully empowered to convene the Fourth Sitting of the First Session of the 12th Legislative Assembly of Perak on 3rd March 2009. Dated this 1st day of March, 2009.
TommyThomas – Malaysian Bar Council
Preview DAMAI UNTUK DUNIA
Program amal yang ingin dianjurkan oleh kami,Mahasiswa Undang-Undang tahun 1 adalah secara menyeluruh .Ianya merangkumi segala jenis pertolongan yang mampu kami berikan dalam bentuk dana kepada mereka yang memerlukan.Program ini dilaksanakan atas kesedaran kami yang tinggi tentang peri pentingnya penglibaan pelajar-pelajar universiti dalam hal ehwal masyarakat dan isu global .Selain daripada membantu mereka yang memerlukan,memberi pendedahan tentang isu semasa,program ini mampu merapatkan hubungan silaturahim antara kami,masyarakat dan seterusnya meningkatkan nama universiti sendiri.Program ini tidak sama sekali melibatkan isu keagamaan,politik ataupun mana-mana pihak tertentu.
Program amal yang pertama yang akan dianjurkan tahun ini adalah khusus mengenai isu peperangan di Palestin. Pada 27 Disember 2008 yang lalu, Israel telah memulakan perang ke atas Palestin. Sejak dari hari itu, serangan dari fasa ke fasa telah membunuh lebih daripada 1,000 orang dalam masa kurang sebulan. Penggunaan fosforus putih oleh Israel, yang mana dikira senjata kimia paling berbahaya di dunia telah menyebabkan ribuan penduduk cedera parah. Tidak kurang dengan itu, kota Gaza hancur dibedil oleh tentera-tentera Israel. Segala pusat kemudahan seperti hospital, sekolah, pusat awam dan pelbagai lagi telah musnah. Pencerobohan ini, telah mengakibatkan seluruh penduduk Palestin menjadi pelarian di negara sendiri.
Isu Israel-Palestin ini telah diambil serius oleh pelbagai pihak. Atas nama memperjuangkan hak asasi manusia, tindakan- tindakan drastik dan berani telah diambil oleh pemimpin-pemimpin dipersada antarabangsa, badan-badan organisasi , NGO dan juga rakyat di seluruh dunia. Usaha-usaha seperti, mengarahkan tentera Zionis melakukan genjatan senjata, pemboikotan barangan Israel-Amerika Syarikat, cadangan bagi membawa Israel ke tribunal jenayah, menghadapkan Israel ke Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia, demonstrasi-demonstrasi jalanan, kutipan dana-dana dan lain-lain adalah tanda protes dan bantahan dunia terhadap Israel kerana menceroboh bumi Palestin.
Menurut peruntukan Artikel 8 di bawah Statut Rome Israel boleh diheret ke Mahkamah Jenayah Antarabangsa (ICC), dimana Israel boleh dikenakan tindakan antaranya memberhentikan jenayah perang dan menarik balik tenteranya dari wilayah yang diduduki. Artikel itu membenarkan bidang kuasa mahkamah itu untuk menangani kes-kes jenayah perang khususnya apabila ia melibatkan jenayah perang yang terancang.
Selain itu, tindakan kejam Israel mengepung Gaza yang mana bertujuan untuk membunuh, membawa kepada kemudaratan tubuh dan mental dan secara sengaja menjejaskan kehidupan masyarakat yang boleh membawa kepada kemusnahan sebahagian atau keseluruhannya adalah termaktub dalam Artikel II Perjanjian Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu (PBB) Pencegahan dan Hukuman Jenayah Genosid.
Sebagai pelajar undang-undang yang bakal bergelar pengamal undang-undang di suatu hari kelak , isu global ini adalah dianggap penting dan wajar diberi perhatian oleh kami. Adalah baik sekali, sekiranya disambil membantu warga Palestin, kami juga dapat menyebarkan ilmu, idea-idea dan seterusnya membawa masyarakat membuka minda untuk berfikir sejenak tentang kemelut yang dilanda dunia era kini.
Dipetik dari kertas kerja program DAMAI UNTUK DUNIA: Doa Untuk Palestin
Monday, January 26, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
harlom parlom ex plitasnon
renaissance89
Dunia digemparkan dengan serangan bertalu talu dari tentera zionis ke atas bumi Gaza menyebabkan ribuan nyawa terkorban. ini bukan sahaja mengguris hati umat islam seluruh dunia tetapi juga keseluruhan umat manusia disebabkan pelanggaran hak asasi manusia, kekejaman dengan mengenepikan prinsip kemanusiaan ataupun karamah insaniah. Nilai kemanusiaan sejagat telah dilupakan. Saya katakan ini adalah isu umat kerana melanggar undang-undang kemanusiaan antarabangsa. Human dignity masyarakat Palestin sama sekali telah diaibkan.
Seperti kebiasaan, badan dunia termasuk PBB tidak langsung mengambil tindakan yang meyakinkan untuk membendung serangan zionis.Di seantero dunia, masyarakat di pelbagai Negara menyatakan bantahan keras mereka dengan mengadakan tunjuk perasan. Di Indonesia umpamanya, puluhan ribu rakyat turun ke jalan raya Jakarta berdemonstrasi mengutuk serangan tentera zionis. Beribu ribu umat islam Sydney mengadakan tunjuk perasaan di australia dan membakar bendera Israel termasuk patung perdana menteri Israel. Di Malaysia juga tidak terkecuali. Solat hajat dan demonstrasi diadakan hampir di seluruh Negara mendokan keamanan dikembalikan buat Palestin. Begitu juga IPTA tempatan. Hasil usaha mahasiswa membangkitkan kesedaran terhadap isu ini, beberapa siri tunjuk perasaan telah diadakan termasuk di UKM,UM,dan UTM.
Dalam isu ini, mahasiswa harus lebih responsive. Mahasiswa merupakan suatu kelompok anak muda yang intelek, dan agresif serta mampu menggegarkan . sebab itu saya melihat rapat umum yang diadakan memperlihatkan keupayaan mahasiswa untuk bersatu menyatakan bantahan keras terhadap serangan regim zionis. Perkumpulan seperti ini juga secara tidak langsung menzahirkan doa untuk kesejahteraan rakyat Palestin.Kemenangan besar Barack Obama yang pada mulanya memberi suatu harapan buat umat islam seluruh dunia, akhirnya member kekecewaan. Tidak ada beza antara Bush dan Obama yang secara terang terangan menghalalkan darah umat islam. Mereka hanya mahu melihat Islam ini diperkotak katikkan.
Malaysia selaku Pengerusi O.I.C harus menyatukan Negara-negara islam mengerah tenaga bersama membantu umat islam Palestin. Kita harus bertindak sebelum lebih ramai terkorban.Kita selaku mahasiswa, demi mambangkitkan kesedaran masyarakat pelbagai usaha wajar kita ambil. Tidak ada gunanya hanya bercakap tentang isu ini tanpa mengambil apa-apa tindakan. kita mahasiswa, terutamanya muslim harus peka, dan bukan pekakkan telinga. Peranan yang boleh kita ambil adalah mempergiatkan usaha kutipan derma, mengedarkan risalah dan menganjurkan forum. Jangan kita membisu dan kaku terus menerus. Bangkitlah mahasiswa sekalian!
Debat Mahasiswa: Pilihanraya kampus 2009
saudara Hazwan Hamidun selaku calon menyampaikan hujah
beberapa siri video lain akan menyusul...
Sunday, January 18, 2009
SELAMAT DATANG
Blog ini ditubuhkan secara bersama oleh mahasiswa FUU UKM batch 24. Blog ini menyediakan ruang untuk menghebahkan aktiviti batch 24,memberi peluang untuk mencernakan idea dan merupakan sutu wacana yang segar dan terbuka untuk menyuarakan pendapat. diharapkan anda mendapat informasi berguna daripada ini dan terus memberi sokongan terhadap blog ini. sebarang cadangan penambah baikan amatlah dialu-alukan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
