Listen to soft instrumental music for 15 to 20 mins before bed to calm the emotions and have a restful night . . .
Opinion is not law. Only the court can declare law.
Vigneswaran’s opinion is not law. He made a self-serving statement to please his masters in Umno since he has to step down soon as Dewan Negara President.
So, he’s angling for another big job from the backdoor PM Muhyiddin Yassin.
If he thinks the amendment was unconstitutional, he should take it to court for a declaration on a point of law.
Since the Constitution has been amended on the sultans, it’s not the done thing to reverse it.
Let the Federal court decide.
Even if the immunity of the sultans is restored, whether by the court or Parliament, it cannot be the INTENTION of the framers of the Constitution to allow wrongdoing to be covered up.
The Federal Court, sitting as the constitutional court, can declare the law on this.
It’s more important that the court scraps the 2009 Perak case law. It has allowed the heads of state — Agong, sultans, Governors — to virtually get involved in politics.
Witness Perak 2009.
Witness Sabah 12 May 2018.
Witness Putrajaya 1 Mar 2020.
Witness the changing of the guards in Johor, Malacca and Perak since 1 Mar 2020. In Kedah, the MB resigned. So, the sultan appointed a new MB.
The heads of state should remain above the fray.
They should not entertain frogs clutching SDs.
Frogs create political instability. Political stability is important for the economy. When politics comes in through the door, economics flies out the window.
It’s because of the Perak case law that the Agong did not appoint DPM Wan Azizah as PM when Mahathir abruptly stepped down in late Feb this year.
It’s because of the Perak case law that the Agong appointed Muhyiddin, by the back door, as PM to replace Mahathir.
It’s because of the Perak case law that PH and/or PH Plus is harping on seizing the PM’s post from Muhyiddin.
That has created great political uncertainty in the country.
It’s because of the Perak case law that the Opposition in Sabah is harping on seizing the CM’s post from the incumbent.
It’s because of the Perak case law that the Sabah gov’t fell on 12 May 2018, two days after it was sworn in.
That has created great political uncertainty in Sabah. Having said that, political stability can be maintained if the Governor remains above the fray.
No court will go against a head of state if he ignores frogs clutching SDs.
Once a simple majority gov’t in Putrajaya has been sworn in, based on the SPR List, thereafter gov’t can be minority. It’s lawful.
In Sabah, a minority gov’t can be sworn in based on the SPR List. The Definition of majority in the state Constitution does not mean simple majority, does not rule out minority gov’t.
On 11 Nov 2018, the High Court referred to the dictionary meaning of majority in ignoring the Definition in the Sabah Constitution.
The dictionary meaning is not law.
The dictionary meaning is not “superior” to the Sabah Constitution.
The Federal Court should set aside the Perak case law and restore the sanctity of the Sabah Contitution.
The proper forum is the legislature.
The true test of confidence of confidence is the passage of gov’t Bills in the legislature. A Bill can be supported by Opposition lawmakers. If the Opposition chooses to oppose or abstain, they must cite reasons which can be accepted by the Speaker, otherwise their vote/s against a Bill can be rejected.
Lawmakers should have upheld, respected, honoured and defended the Sabah Constitution on 12 May 2018, frogs or no frogs.
The Federal court is still sitting on a case filed by the CM from 10 May 2018 on the changing of the guard on 12 May 2018.
The Court of Appeal rejected his case recently in three minutes. The court did not give a hearing to the Plaintiff.
The CoA may have been right in accepting a letter from the state assembly secretary on the number in the legislature on the backdoor gov’t’s side.
However, it cannot say the case is academic. The merits of the case must be heard.
There are issues in conflict. The court has to resolve them.
Firstly, the Definition of majority in the Sabah Constitution.
Secondly, whether the dictionary meaning of majority can over ride the Sabah Constitution.
Thirdly, whether the Perak case law applies to Sabah over and above the state Constitution.
Fourthly, can the Governor appoint a new CM when the incumbent has not resigned?
Fifthly, whether any decision by the Federal court is only for future purposes i.e. not for reviving the status on 10 May 2018.
MA’s lawyers will not be able to argue in the Federal Court that the state assembly secretary’s letter, produced in the court of appeal, should be set aside.
They may be able to argue that there were errors in facts and errors in law in the CoA’s decision.
The Federal court should set aside the CoA’s decision.
The court does not have to agree with the CoA that the state assembly secretary’s letter produced in the court of appeal rendered MA’s case academic i.e. there’s no live issue.
The court will not decide on who is the lawful CM.
It will not touch on the Governor sacking MA as CM and/or that he was wrong.
The court will not go against the Governor.
The Governor will say he didn’t sack MA as CM. MA, he will say, was automatically sacked as CM when he lost his majority.
It’s difficult to see how the court will give the benefit of the doubt to the Governor on his claim that he didn’t sack the CM. Not sure what his letter states.
Governor cannot appoint a CM when the incumbent has not resigned.
Agong appoints PM but cannot sack.
Agong cannot assume that PM has been automatically sacked if he or she loses “majority” in Parliament.
An inferior law is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with a superior law. States have to follow Federal.
Agong can sack Ministers but only upon the advice of the PM. He has to accept such advice.
The court should say that minority gov’t is lawful.
MA should have filed an Originating Summons for Declarations on points of law on whether the Governor can sack the CM, on the Definition of majority in the Sabah Constitution, and on the Perak case law violating the Sabah Constitution.
Again, the sanctity of the Sabah Constitution should be restored.
It can be stressed that the dictionary definition of majority is inferior to the definition in the Sabah Constitution and is not law.
The High Court erred in facts and in law when it said the BN (one symbol) was a coalition no different from the other side (three symbols joined by Upko).
The Definition of majority in the Sabah Constitution is not about coalition but one symbol, as per the SPR List, it does not mean simple majority, and does not rule out minority gov’t.
The High Court judge also erred in facts and law by giving preference to the dictionary meaning of majority instead of the Definition of majority in the Sabah Constitution.
The dictionary meaning of majority is not law, is not “superior” to the Sabah Constitution.
Normally, the Application for Leave to Appeal has to be filed first and Leave obtained before proceeding with the Appeal.
In the Application for Leave to Appeal, the Applicant must be able to cite errors in facts and errors in law by the Court of Appeal.
In practice, the Application for Leave to Appeal and the Appeal are filed at the same time.
In this case, only the Application for Leave has been filed.
Also, it’s rather unusual the Federal Court is taking so long to hear the Leave Application.
It would be unfortunate if the Federal court puts on blinkers and confines itself to the CoA decision.
The Federal Court must take a wide latitude in law and set aside the CoA decision.
It can rule the High Court a mistrial and send the case back to the High Court to be heard before another judge or hear the case itself.
The merits of the case must be heard.
The Perak case law must be set aside.
The sanctity of the Sabah Constitution must be restored.
Read further here . . .
Bahasa Kebangsaan is based on the Johor-Rhio-Lingga version of the Malay language, the lingua franca of the Archipelago before the advent of western colonialism.
Bahasa Melayu has since been replaced by Bahasa Malaysia which is based on the former and infused with local dialects and languages and English.
We no longer have bahasa kebangsaan.
Bahasa Malaysia not bahasa kebangsaan, Article 152 says bahasa kebangsaan means Bahasa Melayu.