More calls for fresh elections in Perak

Following the on-going political wrangle in Perak that saw the state assembly seating held under a large raintree, there are now renewed calls for fresh elections to be held.

Some lawyers contacted by Malaysiakini also questioned the action taken by the court to bar Tommy Thomas and others from representing Perak Speaker V. Sivakumar.

Certainly dissolving the State Assembly was one of the emergency resolutions adopted during yesterday's historic seating.

Other resolutions that were adopted included recognising ousted menteri besar Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin as the legitimate menteri besar and adoption of the privilege committee’s report on the suspension of newly-appointed Menteri Besar Zambry Abd Kadir and his six exco members from the State Assembly.

Param Cumaraswamy, former UN special rapporteur for the independence of judges and lawyers has these to say on the ongoing political crisis in Perak:

“The present crisis in Perak could have been averted if His Royal Highness Sultan Azlan Shah had dissolved the Legislative Assembly on Feb 5.

“The present scenario in Perak is seen as a state without a legitimate government. The casualty in such an environment primarily is the rakyat. If the situation is not carefully addressed and arrested quickly the rule of law in Perak will be in jeopardy and anarchy will be the order of the day.

“Our rulers are not absolute monarchs. They are in essence constitutional monarchs. Their decisions are not absolute. The implications of their decisions can be discussed and commented by the people and the media.

“The ramifications of the decision not to dissolve the legislative assembly on that day are now seen, heard and felt. This is not the time to look into the technicalities and strict interpretation of the law and the constitution. This is not even the appropriate occasion for the intervention of the courts.

“There is a higher constitutional principle namely the doctrine of separation of powers to be protected. It is ultimately for the rakyat of Perak to decide their own destiny. That is what democracy is all about.

“There clearly appears a situation where no one member of the legislative assembly could command the confidence of the majority in the same assembly.

“I therefore appeal to His Royal Highness to dissolve the legislative assembly and pave the way for fresh elections. Let there be a government of the rakyat, by the rakyat and for the rakyat in Perak.”

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, lawyer and Human Rights Association (Hakam) president:

“The decision by the Ipoh High Court to bar senior lawyers Tommy Thomas and Chan Kok Leong from representing Perak speaker V Sivakumar yesterday is certainly disturbing.

“While, I respect the decision made by Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim, I find it disturbing as Sivakumar should have been allowed to appoint a lawyer to represent him especially in a case of great importance and urgency.

“The Government Procedures Act 1956 allows civil servants to be represented by representatives from the Attorney-General Chambers and this include the state legal advisers.

“This means it covers all civil servants and also the executive where the state would appoint its own lawyers to protect them from civil suits.

“However, this does not cover the Speaker of the House as he is considered part of the legislature. Being an elected representative and elected in the position of Speaker, he can choose any lawyer to represent him.

“I also cannot understand the legality in requiring Perak legal adviser Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid to represent Sivakumar.

“Ahmad Kamal had represented Barisan Nasional Menteri Besar Zambry Abdul Kadir in ousted menteri besar Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin's judicial review application and this represented a conflict of interests.

“How can they say the state legal adviser should represent Sivakumar, when he is already seen appearing for Zambry.

“I found it surprising that such an urgent scenario as it was yesterday, the judicial commissioner decided not to allow Sivakumar to be represented although Thomas and other lawyers were present and had indicated they were representing him.”

Raja Aziz Addruse, senior lawyer and former Bar Council chairperson:

“The court should have allowed Sivakumar to be represented by somebody.”

S. Ambiga, Malaysian Bar president:

“I agree there was certainly legal basis to disagree with Ridwan's decision that the Speaker ought to be represented by the state legal adviser rather than private lawyers.

“Firstly, every lawyer must act on the instructions of his client and not otherwise. The Speaker has stated that he never gave instructions to the state legal adviser to either appear for him or to argue the case on his behalf. This is a matter that the court must satisfy itself before proceeding.

“Secondly, the state legal adviser is clearly in a position of conflict. He and his department are presently acting for Zambry in the Kuala Lumpur High Court's suit where his appointment is being challenged. How can the state legal adviser or his department act for the Speaker?"

“If the parties who file and defend proceedings in court are confident of the strength of their case, there is little reason to taint or mar the proceedings with acts that militate against natural justice and fair play.

"It bears repeating that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The courts have a duty to uphold the highest principles of justice, fairness and their own independence. We must respect the doctrine of separation of powers and uphold the Federal Constitution."

"The legislative assembly was convened by the Speaker a short distance from the state secretariat building. There are questions as to whether it was permissible to hold the legislative assembly outside the Perak secretariat building.

"Of course, the state secretariat building is where the legislative assembly ought to have been held. However, the Speaker and assemblypersons were prevented from holding it in the proper place by the police (and this raises serious issues as to the legality of the police action).

"The police have therefore acted improperly on the suspended state assembly secretary's advice in defiance of the Speaker. These errors are further compounded by events that transpired in the High Court.

"Thus the Speaker had no choice but to act within what may be seen as wide powers to convene the meeting elsewhere. No doubt there will be contrary views but it must be understood that this situation is unprecedented and the standing orders may not adequately cover these eventualities, thus leaving the Speaker with the powers to act according to the circumstances of the case.

"We will no doubt see another case filed in court. And the public has to further suffer the consequences of uncertainty.

"The situation is untenable and cries out for the one thing that will resolve it conclusively – fresh elections. There is now a window of opportunity for this to happen. Let the people decide."