廣告 Ads(感謝您的每一個廣告點擊)

Tuesday, 9 February 2010

Federal Court ruled unanimously to dismiss Nizar Appeal / 联邦法院一直裁决赞比理为霹雳州合法州务大臣

Federal Court ruled unanimously to dismiss Nizar's appeal. Zambry won, he is the legitimate Menteri Besar per Federal Court or BN government, definitely not rakyat.


Federal Court ignored the case law precedent (Stephen Kalong Ningkan case) which clearly stated that the Sultan have no right to order the MB to resign, it's the MB who have discretion to do so ie either resign or resolve the DUN. Our law is clear that Sultan have no right to interfere on these issues!


Besides, the judges also decided per incuriam that in Perak Constitution the vote of no cofidence need no to be done in the State Assembly, and it's legitimate for Sultan to declare such a no confidence in His palace.....so, are we a Monarchy Kingdom or Democracy Nation? The Sultan can decide who shall rule the state or country? What is the position of the people in such situation?


With due respect, what's wrong with our judges? Even a "not-so-lazy" 2nd year law student will know these principles, why our Federal Court Judges, the judges for the highest court on this Land don't know?


Black day for justice and Malaysia. Rest in peace, our democracy and constitutionalism. R.I.P

19 评论 Comments:

Anonymous said...

Rest in peace, malaysia.

~aNG~伟翔 said...

We shall never let this happen!

小明 said...

其实,照这样的判发,

1)是不是,明天尼查跟30个议员见苏丹,大臣又变成尼查?后天,国阵又带31个议员见苏丹,大臣又变国阵的?这样的话,要议会来干吗?见苏丹就行了?
2)如明天,安华带了30个本来国阵的议员,跟民联的一起见元首,是不是不用开国会就让安华成首相?

~aNG~伟翔 said...

小明:

是的,这就是很boleh的判决。议会形同虚设,回到君王统治时代,他说了算!什么议会常规议会条规议会守则,全部都是废的。

这个判决根本就不logic,也不符合我们所读的宪法精神(constitutionalism),跟之前的判词也不符,这样的裁决,谁会信服?.....忘了说,除了国阵意以外。

Anonymous said...

After Lingam tape, another big shame on malaysia judiciary. Fxck off the stupid judges!

~aNG~伟翔 said...

Yes, absolutely right. Lingam tape, that guy is clean right? what the fxxx with MACC? There are so many strong evidence against him, his assistant, the picture took in NZ, the video, and the MACC declared that he is clean? What the fxxx!

Add on the current stupid judgment from our highest court....aiz, not only a big shame on our judiciary, i even felt that malaysia judiciary had destroyed by all these people! No judiciary at all! The courts and judges is merely another dependent body on Executive! No seperation of power in Malaysia at all!

孤星冷月 said...

苏0与法庭不过是扯线公仔,凶残的炸弹手在幕后操纵,身不由己呀!

~aNG~伟翔 said...

苏0?什么来的?不过我绝对同意他们只是扯线公仔....

Fair仔 said...

有没有法官们的名字与俏像? 好好替他们做一做宣传。

孤星冷月 said...

蛋啦,boleh国有些人不能批评的嘛,犯法的。

~aNG~伟翔 said...

孤星兄:明白!

Fairnation兄:呵呵,去malaysiakini找找就有,其实五位法官里面只有一两位是资深的,其他都是刚刚擢升的!

Bai said...

小翔,有东西想向你这法律系的高才生请教!
1)根据槟州宪法,现在民联拥有超过2/3的议席那民联能不能够修改州宪法收回州元首解散州议会的权力,让议长或其他方面来执行?

~aNG~伟翔 said...

白兄,你的问题都根本成立,要我怎么回答呢?州宪法根本没有赋予元首或苏丹革除大臣或解散州议会的权力,如何撤除?

所以我说这个判决是“per incuriam”的,几时根据自己的想法来判,没有根据既定的法律下判!这是一个法律术语。

~aNG~伟翔 said...

忘了说,我不是高材生啦=.=

Bai said...

这么说又回到我的问题上,既然宪法没明文规定那为何不写明说以后只有议长拥有权力组织或解散议会?这样来以后不是省了很多功夫吗。
2)可以不可以在州议会上立法说以后哪个议员若退党就自动丧失议员资格?

~aNG~伟翔 said...

其实现在的情况就是只有首相/大臣有权解散议会(议长只是主持会议),只要会议通过解散就行了。因为我们是君主立宪国家,所以sultan是figure head,是一个象征,因此就要“形式上”经过他的同意。其实宪法上是明文规定统治者必须跟着首相/大臣的advise行事的,换句话说,这些统治者是没有权力的,就跟英女皇一样。

白兄,你的第二个问题,这一点我说真的不清楚,真要探讨的话我必须去research相关的法令才可以知道。不过根据我所认知的,这些跟选举法令有关,而选举法令是一个apply to全国的法令ie不是州法令,所以州无法随意修改。就像地方选举,也是要通过修改中央的法令才行。其实州政府的权限是非常小罢了,联邦宪法的列表有清楚列明什么是州政府权限,什么是中央政府权限的。

Bai said...

原来如此,对了顺便问问看大马法官是不是一定要有律师资格?(我认识了个泰国的法官),他告诉我根据这里的法律以后他不管离职或退休后都不能再当回执业律师了,大马是不是也一样呢?再8刮一下,以前我有个中学老师没有律师资格为何可以当推事呢?

Anonymous said...

What a sham ! You have rightly cited Stephen Kalong Ningkan's case but what is incredulous (as read in Malaysiakini) is that the judges must have hunted high and low to find another case authority and whippeee, they cited a case from Nigeria !!! Really looks like we have gone down to the level of Nigeria.
Since you are a law student, maybe you can now throw your copy of the Constitution into the rubbish bin.

And I really wonder how the law professors are going to teach Constitutional Law henceforth.

RIP Malaysia.

~aNG~伟翔 said...

Thanks, i read this case and studied it when i was in my 2nd year, it's a very important case. However, now seems like the situation had turned over by this current case. The judges created new law, a law which is inconsistent with our case law precedent, a law which is inconsistent with our Constitution!

Friend, not only the Consti, we have to throw away the case, the notes, the textbook etc! All this stxpid judges change the whole rule!

Related Posts