Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Opposition may table restoration of original Article 121 (1)

Malaysia Today - by Sharon Tan, THE EDGE

The opposition may table a private member’s bill to amend Article 121 (1) of the Federal Constitution that restores the court’s judicial power if the government fails to do so.

“It is an option that we are considering seriously. We would do it if the government does not do it,” said DAP member of parliament (MP) for Ipoh Barat, M Kulasegaran.
There has not been a private member’s bill since the 1970s. Any constitutional amendment would need two-thirds support of parliament, which means Barisan Nasional MPs would need to vote for it.

“In this country there is no procedure preference given to private member’s bill. If there is private member’s bill preference given, so many of my earlier application would have come up. It will never come up. It will be impossible to see the light of the day,” said Kulasegaran, adding that the opposition may still go ahead with the tabling of such a bill.

The original Article 121(1) conferred the “judicial power of the Federation” on the courts, but in an amendment in 1988, this was replaced by “judicial power vested” in the courts as “may be provided for by federal law”.

Party Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) MP for Subang, R Sivarasa, said passing a private member’s bill was virtually impossible without the blessing of the government.

“So forget about the Article 121 amendment. It is never going to happen. Westminster has moved on and we are still in the boondocks.

“Even our neighbours have moved on, like Indonesia, Thailand and (the) Philippines. The procedure in parliament does not entertain any proposals like motions or private member’s bills of the opposition,” he said adding that even though if they were to file a private member’s bill, the matter would never be debated.

Sivarasa said former minister in the prime minister’s department Datuk Zaid Ibrahim had spoken to the opposition about judicial reforms.

He said Zaid stirred the interest of all parties, including the Bar Council, which wanted to see the doctrine of separation of powers and rule of law restored.

“Zaid was talking to us about a serious reform of the judiciary — first a judicial appointment commission as a constitution commission which will necessitate amendment to the constitution. He was also talking about amendment to Article 121. Unfortunately with his departure, I think all that is gone,” he said.

He said the current minister in charge of the law portfolio, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, was not looking at a constitutional commission.

“Which means it is a body that nobody is going to take too seriously and the basic framework of PM appointing judges is not going to change. Zaid was talking to us. We didn’t agree with a lot of what he said but it was a serious process.

“It should be properly done, with consultations and it takes time. Do it with consultation as Zaid had started. Now he (Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) seems to be rushing purely for political purposes,” said Sivarasa, adding that a non-constitutional commission would not have enough clout.

Meanwhile, Kulasegaran welcomed the decision by the judges in both Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s and Raja Petra Raja Kamarudin’s cases last Friday.

Judge SM Komathy Suppiah ruled in favour of Anwar last Friday when she found the transfer form (for the case to be transfered from Sessions Court to the High Court for trial) signed by Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail to be invalid.

The judge made the ruling as Abdullah had assured the nation that the AG would not be a part of the trial as the latter was being investigated for allegedly tampering with evidence in Anwar’s trial a decade ago.

In Raja Petra’s case, Judge Syed Ahmad Helmy Syed Ahmad ruled his detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA) as unconstitutional. He said the home minister had not followed the proper procedure under Section 8 of the ISA in issuing the detention order.

Wondering if other judges around the country would stand up against the executive branch of government, Kulasegaran said he hope for “some semblance of (the judiciary) coming to normalcy.” He added that there was a need of a thorough look at the appointment of judges to ensure that the process was transparent.

On Raja Petra’s case, Bar Council president Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan said: “The decision of the learned High Court judge in the habeas corpus application of Raja Petra Kamarudin gives us hope that our judiciary has acted and will act with courage, integrity and independence when the liberty of an individual is threatened by the arbitrary use of power under the Internal Security Act 1960.”

2 comments:

Nudist said...

Its good on your candle vigil. Good Idea, but wrong use and the wrong way to address. Candle is shown for the hardship our parents went through by burning their sweat and strength to bring us up and at the end of the day. What happens, they just melt fully with a mellowed light.
So by putting a candle as a so called abolish ISA sounds so foolish of you guys. At the end of the day you guys are just going to melt and gone.
"SIKIT-SIKIT MAIN POLITIK" Who should be labelled so? U mean the breaking of the Ampang temple after the PROMISE given is "SIKIT-SIKIT MAIN POLITIK"?
The SEXUAL BRIBE taken by your PR representative is "SIKIT-SIKIT MAIN POLITIK"? Ok now, PR has taken over 5 states. Tell me how many temples have you build? None! Abolished? Soon many as your buddy in Selangor stated openly that he is going to do so.

What has Kula done? Hey just inform him not to be a dope. DAP is pure racist? How many Indians can be there? Karpal is the National President, but whose voice is heard more? Karpal of Lim Kit Siang. How many functions DAP respected the Indians who were sitting down!!! They use Mandarin when there are Indians presents even though is minimal. U dare to disagree I will show the Video. U dare to deny?
What has KULA achieved? Let me know more rather than being a seated critiquer!!!

SUGUMARAN PERIASAMY said...

Dear nudist, I personally welcome ur comments. For u info my blog title is "Sikit-sikit... Nak Main Politik" not as u said.

My blog title will give different expression and meanings for those who are pro to BN and for those who are pro to PR, but for me it sounds total diff.

U gave a diff explanation for the candle vigil - I agree with u.

Ampang temple and sexual bribe is nothing to do with my blog title.

If u plan to attack someone be factful and dont jump with ur gun.

What makes u to say DAP is racist? Language or no of indians in the party?

Come on nudist...if u want to show the video clip.... me too can show u few video clips... but it will defeat my purpose n ideology.

I started my blogging not to protect any party but to reveal the naked truth and not to politise any matters.

U may or may not agree with me...I cant do much about it....but one thing man....i will take ur comments positively and will highlight for a changes.

Thanks.