Time to ratify the ambiguity in law
In view of such ambiguity, perhaps Parliament should amend the phrase to just state ‘jailed a year or more‘, instead of ‘not less than one year’ or ‘a fine of two thousand rinngit or more‘ instead of ‘not less than two thousand ringgit’.
Thomas Lee Seng Hock, Sin Chew
After the Kuala Lumpur High Court reduced Batu MP Tian Chua’s sentence of a six-month jail term and a RM3,000 fine for assaulting a policeman three years ago to a RM2,000 fine on Thursday 17 June 2010, it was assumed by almost everyone that Tian Chua will get to keep his parliamentary seat.
However, doubts have arisen as to whether the RM2,000 fine imposed on Tian Chua is the benchmark minimum amount of fine to disqualify anyone from being an MP.
Article 48 (1) (e) of the Federal Constitution on the Disqualification for membership of Parliament reads:
(1) Subject to the provision of this Article, a person is disqualified from being a member of either House of parliament if –
(e) he has been convicted of an offence by a court of law in the Federation (or, before Malaysia Day, in the territories comprised in the stats of Sabah or Sarawak or in Singapore) and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or a fine of not less than two thousand ringgit and has not received a free pardon;….”.
The argument is whether “Not less than two thousand ringgit (RM2,000)” means: (a) RM2,000 and above; or (b) more than RM2,000, that is, one sen or more above RM2,000.
If (a) is the correction interpretation, than anyone fined RM2,000 or more must be disqualified as an MP.
Then, Batu MP Tian Chua, whose fine was reduced from RM3,000 to RM2,000 is no more qualified to be an MP.
On the other hand, if (b) is correct that “no less than RM2,000” means “one sen or more above RM2,000”, then Tian Chua can stay on as MP.
In 1993, Justice Tan Sri Gunn Chit Tuan of the Supreme Court ruled that the phrase “not less than” means “more”.
Based on Justice Gunn’s interpretation, then what Article 48 (1) (e) of the Federal Constitution stipulates is any amount above RM2,000, that is the benchmark minimum is not RM2,000 but RM2,000 plus one sen.
If this interpretation is adopted, then Tian Chua remains an MP.
However, veteran lawyer and parliamentarian Karpal Singh cited a 1975 case involving the matter of disqualification of an MP which went all the way up to the Privy Council.
Like in Tian Chua’s case, it involved a RM2,000 fine.
According to Karpal, the Privy Council upheld the sentence, the MP was disqualified and a by-election held.
Karpal said that Tian Chua had been constitutionally disqualified.
From the English usage point of view, “no less than” can also mean “as much as”, meaning, in the RM2,000 case, that “no less than RM2,000” means any amount matching the RM2,000 or more.
On this interpretation, Tian Chua will have to make way for a by-election.
Looking at the whole matter objectively, I believe the original intention of those who drafted the Federal Constitution was to make RM2,000 being the minimum benchmark fine to disqualify a person from being an MP, not RM1,999.
In view of such ambiguity, perhaps Parliament should amend the phrase to just state ‘jailed a year or more’, instead of ‘not less than one year’ or ‘a fine of two thousand rinngit or more’ instead of ‘not less than two thousand ringgit‘.
