Pakatan Rakyat's decision to go to court over the situation in Perak is not to seek legal redress, claimed the Malaysian Indian Youth Development Foundation (MIYDF).

sa vigneswaran On the contrary, the foundation led by former MIC Youth chief SA Vigneswaran, labelled the move as nothing more than a "political facade."

"In all disputes, the deeming inference is that the first person to go to court has the benefit of the public perceiving him to be righteous and the party sued is the wrongdoer.

"The true meaning behind the suit is to portray to the people that Pakatan Rakyat has a good case and the Sultan has acted unlawfully," he said in a statement today.

According to Vigneswaran, the objective of the lawsuit is to "keep the dissent burning" and the "subsisting strong emotions" would help Pakatan Rakyat gain public sympathy especially at a time when there are two by- elections approaching.

"When the majority moves from one political party to another, the credible response for any leader of the adversely affected party is to take responsibility.

"Menteris besar and Aduns (state reps) hold public office pursuant to a fiduciary duty owed to the people. That duty must be discharged with a very high standard of care," he said.

Rulers above partisan politics

Unfortunately, he said, instead of understanding and analysing the problems and offering solutions, the outgoing menteri besar Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin and his men contributed to the "snowballing of a negative, unhealthy and misinformed debate" among the rakyat.

nizar jamaluddin files suit against dr zambry abdul kadir perak 130208 Vigneswaran lamented that the diversity of opinion on the blogs are tilted towards blaming the monarch without substance and facts.

"Have the dissenting rakyat forgotten that in Kedah, Perlis, Penang, Selangor and Terengganu, the rulers and the Penang governor exercised their rights under the constitution to appoint the menteris besar and chief minister on their own judgment without being dictated by the ruling government," he said.

"When the Sultan of Perlis stood firm to express the rakyat's dissatisfaction by choosing Md Isa Sabu as the MB despite the prime minister’s public support for the incumbent Shahidan Kassim, the PM or the ruling government did not commence a legal suit against the MB or the Sultan.

"Similarly in Terengganu, the new MB Ahmad Said was fully endorsed by the ruler against the recommendation of the PM who was again supporting the incumbent Idris Jusoh," he added.

Vigneswaran said the decisions of the respective rulers indicate that the monarch have placed themselves above partisan politics.

"They have redefined their roles as that of helping to uphold justice, maintain peace and resolve conflicts between contending parties, in much the same way as judges serve society," he added.

As for the Perak crisis, Vigneswaran, who is a lawyer, felt that the Sultan, who is no stranger to interpretation and rule of law, acted in accordance with the state’s constitution.

"Article 16 (2)(a) states, 'His highness shall first appoint as menteri besar to preside over the executive council a member of the legislative assembly who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly'."

"Article 16(4) states, 'In appointing a menteri besar, his highness may, in his discretion, dispense with any provisions in the constitution of the state restricting his choice of a menteri besar, if in his opinion it is necessary to do so in order to comply with the provisions of this article'."

"Article 16(6) states, 'If the menteri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly, then, unless at his request his highness dissolves the legislative assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the executive council (emphasis added)'."

Where did he err?

malaysian law conference 291007 sultan azlan 2 Vigneswaran said detractors have accused Sultan Azlan Shah, a former Lord President and an eminent judge, as having erred in law.

"Based on the relevant articles of the constitution as above, where did the Sultan err in law?" he asked.

Vigneswaran said it was Nizar who after realising he lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly due to the cross overs, approached the Sultan to act pursuant to Article 16(6).

At this material point, he said, the Sultan had to make a decision i.e whether to dissolve or not to dissolve the state assembly.

"The Sultan after listening to both parties and the four representatives who pledged support to Barisan Nasional decided not to dissolve the assembly.

"Upon deciding not to dissolve, the Sultan had to decide on the new executive council pursuant to Article 16(2)(a) which expressly states the Sultan chooses a MB who in his highness' judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly. That is exactly what the Sultan of Perak did," he said.

"Why didn't Nizar resign graciously rather than create a crisis and now further seek judicial review on the decision of the Sultan.

"We must be careful to distinguish between fact, law and fiction, and between what is authentic and a facade. Nizar's refusal to accept the sultan’s decision and Pakatan Rakyat's play up of the situation ignite passions, fuel debates and stir hatred among the people towards the monarch," he added.

Noting that it is natural for defections to brew a crisis, Vigneswaran however said: "It is unethical for the unhappy group to create myths or narrow interpretations of fact and experience to capitalise on the crisis especially in trying to conceal embarrassment over deceit by their very own party representatives."