What the Law implies
The Law is a system of rules and regulations enforced through a set of legal institutions, used as an instrument to support civil obedience, politics, economics and society. The Law emphasizes equality, fairness, liberty and justice just as it metes out punishment for those who chose to break them.
In a democratic country wannabe such as Malaysia, the Law of the Land is paramount. Even in a communist country, there are laws to govern the country. The only lawless place is probably on Mars.
The Malaysian Law states that the State Constitution will be utilized as a governing factor to guide us in time of such calamity as is happening now in the state of Perak. It states as a fact that Sultan of Perak must approve the position of Menteri Besar before it is exclusively granted to the winning political party in a state election. However, it makes no mention of whether the Sultan possesses the authority to forcibly remove this Menteri Besar at any time for whatever reasons.
In such a situation, the MB can only be removed from his office if he resigns (either voluntarily or was forced to) or a successful vote of no confidence is directed against him in a formal sitting of the State Assembly. The pertinent question now is whether such events have occurred. Did Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin resign from office? Secondly, was he removed from office through a formal vote of no confidence in the State Assembly? The answers to both questions are “NO”. It would therefore legally be assumed that Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin is still acting in the capacity of the Menteri Besar of the Malaysian state of Perak.
If this is the case, then the Sultan of Perak has erred when he demanded Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin to resign from office, as he has no overriding authority to do so. Additionally, the PDRM have exceeded their power when they denied the legal Menteri Besar access to his own office. Removing all his things and personal items from the MB’s office is criminal and can be construed as theft. The Palace also has also no legal right to organize a ceremony to instill a new Menteri Besar, especially when the legal Menteri Besar is still in existence.
Having said, where does this lead us? The allegedly impartial and independent Elections Committee has shown their allegiance to the Federal Government when they illegally rejected the resignation letters submitted by the Speaker of the Perak State Assembly when they possess no discretionary powers to doing so. PDRM is also in the same quandary when they took over the State Secretariat building and ejecting the rightful state government from their offices. Even the Bar Council is finally showing its spots when they stated, “the prerogative of the Sultan cannot be challenged in court”. My question to the Bar Council is this, “Even when it is illegal?”
So, if the illegal BN State Government of Perak convenes an illegal state assembly, there can be no vote of a no confidence against the legal MB, right? Since there was no resignation letter and no formal vote as such, Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin is still the MB of Perak, right? The answers to those questions lay inside a Court of Law but since the Bar Council said that “the prerogative of the Sultan cannot be challenged in court”, where does it leave us?
One last question, “Is the Word of Law still pertinent here in Malaysia?”
– Hakim Joe
