Out-manouvred and ill-prepared, Perak DAP and PKR resort to tyranny

In a nutshell, the fiasco at the Perak Assembly was mainly due to the ever defiant and ungentlemenly conduct of Nizar, his puppetmaster Nger, Perak DAP and PKR, and Pakatan Rakyat as a whole.

They defied all court orders, palace ruling and prerogative, and assembly conduct conventions. Worse still, they persistently lie and spin fact for their political expediancy. Before reading further, watch this video from NTV7 for a quick perspective of the incident, below:

Despite their rhetorics of democrasy, DAP-led Pakatan Rakyat were set against democracy to deny the maxim "majority rule". When they realised they were pre-empted, out-manouvred, and ill-prepared, they resorted to unruly behaviours and violent means to disrupt the Perak Assembly.

If NTV7 report is brushed as a "Government mouthpiece", see this pictoral gallery by The Nut Graph here. Below is the slightly spinned Malaysiakini's version of the fiasco:

Due to their inexperiance, BN was able to anticipate and pre-empt their every legal and illegal moves. From the on set, DAP and PKR had planned to disrupt the Assembly. Blogger and journalist Shamsul Yunos overheard Sivakumar's conversation here.

The first plan was to block entry into the building and hall through street demonstration and crowding the hall entrance. That was thwarted by police barricade and tight security with a court order. And, the BN assemblymen entered the hall in the wee hours of the morning. It will not be surprising if all of them had slept inside overnight.

Secondly, it was to deny the majority the numbers. Despite the court decisions, vested power of EC, and prerogative power of the Sultan, the Speaker and the Pakatan "Riot" were adamant that:

• The three independent Assemblymen/women had resigned, thus ineligible to attend,

• The was dissolution of State Assembly which in defiance of the Sultan's prerogative to refuse,

• Insisting Nizar remain as MB despite the clause 16.6 clearly state he "must" resign,

• Zambery, and his 6 exco members leave the hall despite court order dismissing Speaker's decision to suspend as ultra vires,

• Assembly under the tree had dissolve the Assembly and rectify Speaker's decision to suspend the 10, and

• Assembly under the tree were legal despite the absence of a declaration from the palace

Sivakumar insisted at his whim and fancy that the Assembly shall not proceed based on his interpretation that the Speaker had the sole and absolute power.

BN side out-manouvred the inexperianced and not so meticulous DAP legal team. They did not realise the Assembly is deemed to begin upon the officials entering the Assembly after the inspection of the guards. All the normal procedures to inspect the guard, doa prayers, Sultan's address, etc. was fulfilled.

Again, they can go to the court to dispute, but that will be another matter. All that was decided stands till it is overturned. If the court decide in their favour, another assembly can be reconvene with the palace consent. The BN manage to buy time from the automatic dissolution of the State Assembly.

The 10 BN Assemblymen refused to obey the Speakers order to leave the hall. Their basis is the court decision that nullify the Speakers decision. It is the same basis for Assembly officials to refuse order.

The Speaker did not realise that when he entered into an exchange with the MB, he had techically started the proceeding.

Zambery had proposed the motion for the removal of Sivakumar. There was commotion as DAP and PKR Assemblymen tried to physically drag Zambery out of the hall. The Speaker responded to refuse the motion and cited a letter dated the day before to refuse the written motions.

This exposed another of their inexperience. The Speaker failed to realised that the MB is empowered by the Standing Order to float a motion without seeking prior Speaker approval.

The predicted response by Sivakumar is to stubbornly stop the proceeding from progressing. With the Assembly at a standstill, it was a basis for State Assemblywomen and Deputy Speaker, Hee Yit Foong to take control as Speaker. The Pakatan Rakyat expectedly claimed it was illegal, but Article 36A (1) (b) of the Perak Constitution allow for the Deputy to takeover upon failure by the Speaker to carryout his duty. (Read the NST report at the bottom of the posting)

Off course this can be brought to court, fine. BN should argue that Sivakumar was unfit and suffered epilepsy (gila babi) or the S1N3 variant of swine flu. Even if thrown out by the court, it still bought time for BN and time favours the majority.

Hii allowed all removals and appointment motions to be voted in what can be described as a "seating within the seating".

This move by BN left them dumbfounded without a response. They heightened their unruly behaviour of rudeness, and disrespect. DAP and PKR Perak ADUNs, including PAS's ex-MB Nizar and ADUN Idham Lim became more aggresive, provocative and violent to "attack" the BN side of the Assembly.

The BN side maintained a cool composure except for Rungkup BN State Assemblyperson Shaarani Mohamad who lost his cool. He was physically contained by his BN colleagues. See the video below:

There is a claim that Deputy Speaker had resorted to apply a "pepper spray" on handicap DAP Assemblymen Au Yong in self defense. Whether it is true or false, as a physically handicap, she has every right to defend herself. She was receiving the brunt of sexual and psychological harassment from her former colleagues. A Malaysiakini video of the incident, which many claim was passed to them by a TV3 Group TV camera person, below:

Order could only be maintained after motions to remove and suspend Sivakumar and 3 other ADUNs were passed.

During the removal of Sivakumar, the sargent-in-arm was obstructed and physically roughed up. This justify the Speaker to bring in external security as per in the power of the Speaker in the Standing Order.

When their chips began to fall, the Pakatan Rakyat acted like victim to claim of police abuse, assembly as off limit, and power grab. But with PAS not involved in the fracas, blogger Berita dari Gunong here can't help sensitizing it as an antogonistic act by the Chinese towards the Malays.

Is it a case of Tyranny of the Minority or Might is Not Always Right?

For a moment, lets think.

The pictures, videos and answers are presented for rational considerations. The question in everyone's mind should be to ask whether the conduct of DAP and PKR is deserving as a future alternative Government.

With these kind of natural inclination, will they take into consideration the voices of the people when they are truly powerful? Will the rakyat be treated in the same unruly and violent manner they imposed on our national institution today? Is this their response when the rakyat disagree?

----------------------------

Hee defends role in assembly

IPOH: Perak state assembly Deputy Speaker Hee Yit Foong said she had the power to take over the running of the assembly session as specified under Article 36A (1) (b) of the Perak Constitution.

She said her decision to chair the assembly session to appoint Datuk R. Ganesan as the new speaker on Thursday was not an abuse of power or a power grab from former speaker V. Sivakumar.

"No doubt the speaker (Sivakumar) has the power but as the deputy speaker, I can take over when he is not capable of convening the session," she said here yesterday.

Hee (Independent-Jelapang) said it was normal to appoint a new speaker when the existing speaker had lost the confidence of the majority of the state assemblymen.

"The opposition can name a candidate as the new speaker. This is the democratic process in Malaysia."

She denied an English newspaper report that Thomas Su Keong Seong (DAP-Pasir Pinji) had thrown a RM50 note on her table during the commotion yesterday.

"I would have picked up the money and given it to the needy. Being a stingy person, he was just showing off and would never drop the RM50 note." -- Bernama

Source: NST Online, 2009/05/09

----------------------------

Sivakumar maintains he is the rightful speaker

IPOH: Tronoh assemblyman V. Sivakumar, maintaining that he is the rightful speaker of the state assembly, is asking the police to investigate their own kind for trespassing into the assembly and assaulting him on Thursday.

A group of policemen, uniformed and in plainclothes, entered the House without his knowledge or permission as the speaker about 2.30pm, he said in a police report lodged at the Ipoh district police station here yesterday.

The men, together with suspected gangsters who also had no passes, charged at him and acted violently against him while he was still seated in the speaker's chair, he said.

"I tried my best to warn them not to act violently or to stop me from performing my duty, but the men strangled me and dragged me across the floor, forcibly removing me from the state assembly," he said.

Sivakumar said his ouster as the State Assembly Speaker was the result of a well-planned conspiracy.

"All of them are in it together. I cannot single out or blame only one party. There are a lot of them. The SS (state secretary Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim), LA (state legal adviser Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid) bentara (sergent-at-arms) and others.

"They already had meetings earlier and decided what to do at Thursday's assembly sitting," he said.

Meanwhile, Karpal Singh said a fresh application would be filed at the High Court here to set aside an order issued by an Ipoh magistrate's court on May 6 which prohibited political party supporters and the public from gathering or coming within 500m of the state secretariat during the state assembly sitting on Thursday.

Karpal Singh, counsel for P. Sugumaran, who is the personal assistant to Ipoh Barat MP M. Kulasegaran, said his client would file the action next Monday.

Source: NST Online, 2009/05/09

* Updated: 10/5/09 2:22 PM