What should We Know About Our FC and Political Waste?

Marilah kita bersama2 melihat kemelut yg berlaku di negeri Perak ini dalam perspektif yang berbeda mengikut aturan-aturan yang sejajar dgn prinsip parliamentary democracy. Penekanan akan diberi kpd:

i) Head of states(HOS)(Sultan) dan Kuasa2 yg diperuntukkan mengikut perlembagaan,
ii) Discretionary Power of HOS,
iii) Reserve powers of HOS,
iv) When HOS may dissolve the dissolution of the House,
v) Nature and scope of executive authority
vi) appointment and Formation of a government.

Undang-undang perlembagaan merupakan satu bidang ilmu yg unik berbanding undang-undang lain yg ada didunia ini. Undang-undang perlembagaan adalah berbeza dengan undang-undang jenayah, kesalahan sivil dan sebagainya kerana ia merangkumi segala teras dan asas sebuah negara.Bukan itu sahaja, perlembagaan juga adalah teras kepada pimpinan sesebuah negara atau lebih tepat lagi bagaimana sesebuah negara itu harus ditadbir atau diuruskan baik dari isu air, tanah, kebebasan bersuara, kedaulatan undang2, freedom of liberty,keselamatan dalam negeri, isu2 perairan dan keselamatan di pintu dan sempadan negara, dasar2 hubungan dagangan antarabangsa dan sebagainya.
Perlu ditekankan di sini bahawa tiada satu pun undang-undang di negara ini yg boleh mengatasi undang-undang perlembagaan atau perlembagaan persekutuan Malaysia. Perlembagaan merupakan undang2 tertinggi dalam sesebuah negara amnya yang mengamalkan dasar parliamentary democracy. Bahkan, Parlimen dan institusi Diraja juga tidak boleh menjadi above the law. Dalam erti kata yang lain, Perlembagaan Persekutuan ibaratnya seperti kitab2 ugama yg ada di dalam dunia ini. Segala yg tidak dibolehkan tetap tidak dibolehkan dan jika sesiapa melanggar hukum ini akan dikira berdosa dan begitu lah sebaliknya. Begitu jugalah undang2 Perlembagaan segala tindakan yang melampaui Perlembagaan adalah ultra vires dimana tindakan atau keputusan yg diambil bertentangan dengan perlembagaan adalah tidak sah.

Namun demikian sebagai satu undang2 ciptaan manusia yang fitrahnya khilaf, Perlembagaan Malaysia bukanlah satu undang2 yang sempurna kerana ia adalah dasar utama sesebuah negara secara am sahaja. Sebagai contoh dalam isu2 berkaitan tanah, kita ada beberapa akta yg memperuntukkan hal2 berkaitan urusan tanah seperti National Land Code (yang diadaptasi dari Torrens System Australia), Akta Strata dan sebgainya. Cuma apa yg diperuntukkan oleh perlembagaan ialah kuasa kerajaan dlm menguruskan isu tanah. Seperti yang saya katakan terdahulu, perlembagaan may not be the perfect law but non the less has its own sovereinty and salient features that made the bedrock of a particular country. Therefore, to understand more about the Federal Constitution iin its own spirit, one have to refer to the Reid Commission and the White Papers and Draftings which reflects the state of mind of the drafters of the federal constitution. This would at least help us in understanding why and for what reason a particular Article was inserted in the Federal Constitution. Was it merely a duplicate of other Commonwealth countries' constitution or was it made on purpose looking at the unique features of our country?

Now, having said so let us look into the Reid Commission with regard to the role of a Head of State and YDPA. Mengikut Suruhanjaya Reid, peranan sultan dlm sistem parliamentary democracy tidak kurang tidak lebih sebgai satu simbol sahaja. Sebagai contoh, YDPA atau Raja merupakan simbol perpaduan dan kuasa tertinggi dlm negeri baginda, sbg contoh dalam merasmikan persidangan dewan dll. sungguh pun demikian Baginda menjalankan functional role megikut penasihatnya yg jelas skli seorg MB dlm konteks ini. peranan baginda juga sbg wakil spt wakil bagi agama Islam, org Melayu dan sbgnya. It is common that this functional powers given by the constitution has to be excercised on the of the government of the day. Nevertheles there are situations where the HOS may have discretionary powers (of which shall be excercised when the situation permits). Those powers includes the power to appoint a government as well as to refuse a request to dissolve the house. The Royal Highnest right to refuse a dissolution of the House is exampled form the experience of other commonwealth countries.

In a parliamentary democracy such as Dewan Negara n Dewan Rakyat, the government can be voted out at any time by motion of censure in the house. Thus the PM has the privillege to set time for the motion. The power of which if unrestricted would override public interest as a whole thus would defeat democracy. Now, that in this situation the role of the YDPA is vital with the light of check and balance doctrine to ensure that whatever the decision made by PM is just and does not contravene the constitution. Public outcry would be another external factors to put forward.

The constitution however does not justify such power to refuse any request for dissolution. However if we can see form the Reid Commission's report, there are four situations where refusal may be justify. However, I will mention only of those apply in our case in Perak. Historically, this report has its own significant to remedy any loopholes in our Constitution, in most of the case. First situation, when there's an alternative party capable of forming a stable govt.

However, withholding of consent to dissolve the house can only be made after elections or in our case, floor-crossings in the house (lompat si Nasa dll lompat). In this situation, with the light from most Commonwealth countries, the HOS must give the alternative party capable of forming a STABLE ( i repeat A STABLE govt) to rule as election is both waste of money and time. none the less HOS must see the request from the collapsing govt in THE INTEREST OF THE NATION AS A WHOLE. To add more, the situation in perak is that it is a win-win situation (28-28) as the three hapraks were removed from the dewan by the respectable Speaker. Either BN n PR has a stable govt and incapable of forming one. Thus the best way to resolve this is by initiating the motion of censure towards election. But neither of this happens in Perak. Doesnt it seems like hijacking the authority whereas is it neither the voice of most Perakians nor their wills.

This is more embarassing. I beg to differ but I dissagree with Azalina O. when she said that''dah org taknak tu sudahlah...'' because as far as this matter concerns, most of us tak dgr lagi suara rakyat perak tentang persoalan siapa serta apa yg mereka mahukan dlm pentadbiran negeri Perak. Futhermore, 11 month is far too short to scrutinize a govt minus other oppressive factors and tensions being put by the our 52 year old govt towards these countries led by PR. Personally i think, the 52 yr old govt deserves to be scrutinized. Melihatkan negara Malaysia yg mewah (krn negara yg plg byk mengenakan cukai dan org2 kuat dalam satu badan boleh menikmati elaun berbillion2), masih byk mslh miskin tegar, yg diisytihar bankrupt, yg dimaipulasi oleh wang dan kuasa serat ketamakan UMNO, rumah pigeon hole yg amat menyakitkan mata memandang, sistem pengankutan awam yg daif, perkhidmatan yg terhegeh2, merugikan byk sub-con dgn tunggakan byran sbg cth projek Putrajaya berapa byk sub con rugi stlh duit dipulun main con yg kbykan nya adlh kroni (yg kronik). BPR rasuah, Polis rasuah, kastam rasuah, sistem perudangan dan kehakiman yg dilengah2kan dan campurtgn executive dlm judiciary... itu yg org patut kita scrutize. Byk negara2 lain yg merdeka slps Malaysia tp sudah menjangkau thp socio-ekonomi yg lebih selesa bbnding msia spt Korea sbg contoh. 52 thn spatutnya kita blh jadi setanding Singapora sebuah negara yg kecil tapi gah dlm pelbagai bidang.

Now, leaving that behind (just awile) the Second situation where HOS may withhold a request to dissolve the house is when it is made by a govt that is facing a motion of no confidence in the house of which it doesnt happen in perak. so, i will not say more.

EC for example, has ultra vires its law by declaring there is no need for a fresh election. Election is the 'BESTEST' way as both seats are equal (minus Respectable Mr. Speaker and four haprak stooges).

Only Allah knows, what is the best and it is Him who permits what He wants to happen. Any of my shortcomings is from me and Only Allah Knowesth Best.

Hijacking a govt is not a new issue, in 1987 for example when UMNO was declared illegal by the court it runs the nation as usual instead should be taken by the govt caretaker in the case of a hung parliament. this time around... they should sing Britney's single "Oops I did it again!". With this dirty game, I'm afraid that UMNO should face the fact that it is facing extinction and I doubt our PM-designate sempat take the mandate from Mr. Lalah. Even our PM didn't have a word to say unlike his deputy, he's been doing too much talking that for most of us just couldn't take anymore. It's to pathetic. What's weird most, UMNOians was against the idea of PR to initiate solat hajat to to seek Allah's mercy and show the real truth. Kenapa nak takut kalau benar? Takut paralyse like the guy who hit Anwar dulu ke?

P/s: org Cina belajar sejarah dan undang2, org melayu tak, jadi sbb itu masih ada lagi yg menyokong korupsi. tak kira lah UMNO atau PR, kalau dah korup,kita harus potong tangan mereka. Tapi selagi Pemimpin tertinggi solat 5 waktu dan tahajjud serta tak minum arak n main betina, dan menyelar pengikutnya melakukan yg syirik dan membatalkan iman dan memesongkan akidah, kita wajib hormati, buka lah kitab agama kalau nak tahu lagi.