Stop%2BRestoration%2Bof%2BMahathirism.png

Bersatu padu, mempertahankan reformasi demokrasi tulen, buangkan khayalan, menghalang pemulihan Mahathirism.

Stop%2BRestoration%2Bof%2BMahathirism.png

Bersatu padu, mempertahankan reformasi demokrasi tulen, buangkan khayalan, menghalang pemulihan Mahathirism.

 photo 2019.png

人民之友恭祝各界2019新年进步、万事如意!在新的一年里,联合起来,坚持真正的民主改革! 丢掉幻想,阻止马哈迪主义复辟!

 photo 2014-03-08KajangByElectionPC.jpg

2014年加影州议席补选诉求 / Tuntutan-tuntutan Pilihan Raya Kecil Kajang 2014

 photo ForumKrisisPerkataanAllah.jpg

“阿拉风波•宪法权利•宗教自由”论坛 / Forum "Krisis perkataan Allah • Hak berperlembagaan • Kebebasan beragama"

 photo LimChinSiongampArticle.jpg

林清祥《答问》遗稿片段

 photo 513StudentMovement.jpg

新加坡“5•13学生运动” 有/没有马共领导的争论【之一】与【之二】

 photo the-new-phase-of-democratic-reform-reject-state-islamization.jpg

马来西亚民主改革的新阶段 / The New Phase of Democratic Reform in Malaysia / Fasa Baru Reformasi Demokratik di Malaysia

 photo Bannerv2blue_small.jpg

 photo Banner%2BForum.jpg

 photo Banner_WorkReport2016.jpg

人民之友为庆祝15周年(2001—2016)纪念,在2016年9月上旬发表了最近5年(2011—2016)工作报告(华、巫、英3种语文),并在9月25日在新山举办一场主题为“认清斗争敌友,埋葬巫统霸权”的论坛。

 16 Anniversary.PNG

人民之友16周年纪念,针对即将来临的全国大选发表专题文章,供给我国民间组织和民主人士参考,并接受我国各族人民民主改革实践检验。

509.png

人民之友根据2017年9月24日发表的《人民之友 对我国第14届大选意见书 》的内容与精神以及半年来国内和国外的政治形势,对5月9日投票提出具体意见,供全国选民参考。

Hindraf.png

《人民之友》2019年国际劳动节发表对2007年兴权会游行示威的重要领袖乌达雅古玛(Uthayakumar)的专访(第一部分)。这次专访的主题是:兴权会的主要斗争对象乃是马来霸权统治集团。

Monday, 17 May 2010

“Constitutional Crisis in Malaysia – Why 2 Menteri Besars in Perak?”Forum [Download booklet]

Persahabatan Semparuthi and Friends of Suaram Johor jointly organised a Forum titled “Constitutional Crisis in Malaysia- Why 2 Menteri Besars in Perak?”on 15th May 2010 at Tropical Inn, Johor Bahru.

A Senior lawyer PK Yang, upon the request from the forum organizing committee, has provided a summary of an article of the retired Court of Appeal Judge NH Chan, entitled “The pretended power of dispensing with the law by regal authority – as perceived in the tussle between the Sultan of Perak and the Menteri Besar”. A compilation of this article together with all three corresponding media statements released by the organizing committee, paper of one of our panelists, Dato’ Zaid Ibrahim entitled “Quest for Justice” were distributed at the Forum.

To download a copy of the booklet, click here.


And insert the rest of it here.

“从霹雳大臣双胞案, 谈大马宪政危机”论坛 - 论文集(第一版)(下载)

编按:大红花之友与柔佛州人民之友工委会于2010年5月15日假新山统一大酒店4楼会议厅联合举办“从霹雳大臣双胞案,谈大马宪政危机”论坛。

论坛工委会将主办单位前后发出的3篇新闻文告、主讲人再益的论文《寻求公正》以及杨培根律师,应工委会要求,就一名已退休的著名法官的文章论点,整理而成的 一篇文章《霹雳州苏丹和州务大臣之间的争执焦点 》,合在一起,编印成册,现场分发,作为有心人士研究和讨论论坛主题的参考材料。

下载论文集(第一版)--PDF版

“从霹雳大臣双胞案,谈大马宪政危机”论坛 媒体报导

柔人民之友工委会与大红花之友于5月15日,如期举办“从霹雳大臣双胞案, 谈大马宪政危机”论坛。 接受邀请的主讲人有尼查、杨映波及再益。论坛成功吸引了近500名关心我国政治情况的民众出席。在此附上一些媒体的报导。


东方日报SC3 2010年5月17日



南洋商报B4 2010年5月17日




中国报B05 2010年5月17日




星洲日报JO05 2010年5月17日

Sunday, 16 May 2010

Quest for Justice



Quest for Justice

Zaid Ibrahim


(This article is prepared for and presented at the forum on "Constitutional Crisis in Malaysia - Why 2 Menteri Besars in Perak" held on 15th May 2010 at Tropical Inn, Johor Bahru .)

1. The Spirit of the Constitution

2. Emerging Fascist State
3. The Failing Nation State
4. Liberty & Justice for Economic Stability
5. Standing up & Fighting on

1. The Spirit of the Constitution

Our nation was proclaimed by our Father of Independence, Tunku Abdul Rahman, as a sovereign democracy founded upon the principle of liberty and justice; forever seeking the welfare and happiness of its people and the maintenance of just peace amongst nations.For many years, the Constitution has served us well as the principal guarantor of freedom and equality for all Malaysians. This Constitution, in spirit and intention, is embedded with the political vision and hope to ensure that our country is held together by a common bond amongst its citizens, all believing and sharing a common dream of nationhood. This Constitution has served us as an enduring bond between the various ethnic groups in the country; providing an intricate checks-and-balances between the conflicting interests of various groups; and between interests of the individual and interests of the community.

Unfortunately today, I have come to believe that in this country, neither democracy nor the rule of law exists any longer, not at least in the spirit and intent of the Constitution of 1957. Ours today is nothing more than a nation held together by the brute force of government, aided and abetted by an oligarchy that is bent on protecting its vested interests at all costs. As a result of this, this country has then sustained one of the most serious injuries in its history. This is the injury that has been inflicted unto what I call the ‘the Spirit of the Constitution’.

But who then is this ‘Spirit of the Constitution’? The great English Judge, Lord Denning has best described it in his book, The Family Story. The first element in that spirit is the instinct for justice, which leads to us to believe that right, and not might, is the true basis of society. The second is the instinct for liberty, which leads us to believe that it is free will, and not force, which forms the true basis of governance. These instincts for liberty and justice are abstract ideas, but they are very real indeed – they are understood and felt deeply by many fair and right-minded people from all walks of life. The genius of the Spirit of the Constitution however lies in a third practical instinct, which leads us to balance rights with duties, and powers with safeguards, so that neither rights nor powers shall be exceeded or abused.

Justice and liberty is indeed the centre that holds, providing stability against the self-undoing tendencies of human intelligence, ambitions and politics. Might, force and inequities may have built empires and maintained regimes but make no mistake that they have an even more consistent record in destroying what they have built. If these are the principal values of a nation, sooner or later, this nation will come undone.

I note with sadness that this Spirit, as described by the great judge, can now only be perused over from the law books, but not to be found roaming freely on our streets. The day the physical embodiment of this Spirit, our judges, were stripped of their roles as guardians of the Constitution, this country then commenced on its journey down the road of self-undoing. When this ‘judicial power’ was removed from the Federal Constitution and honourable men on the Bench were carted away in shame and ignominy in 1988; we have in effect, turned away from our visions and hopes of ensuring liberty and justice for the people.

From then onwards, judges simply continued to disappoint us with increased regularity. Those in the Federal Court have demonstrated no shame whatsoever when they declared, amongst many declarations, that the concept of the separation of powers is not a feature of our Constitution, that the Speaker of any State Legislature has no authority to determine if a vacancy exists, despite clear wordings to that effect in the State Constitution. Judges today have even gone so far as to say that a Constitutional monarch can practically remove an elected Menteri Besar, notwithstanding the clear expression in the law that the Menteri Besar does not hold office at the pleasure of the King.

Looking back at the birth of the Constitution, I cannot help but ask, how did we get so lost? But then, if I may, this is the Parable of the Spirit: If we understand the spirit as the force that moves the body, a weakened spirit is indeed a lost soul with a sickly flesh. These injuries sustained by the Constitution are indeed potentially fatal to all of us. Our nation-state today is an ailing nation state – its body, vital state institutions – are all in intensive care. We are lost because we are ill, first in spirit, then in physique.

2. Emerging Fascist State

This is what happens after 23 years of Mahathir Mohammad, followed by his prodigy Najib Razak. Democracy has been lost on us. With that, our sense of right and wrong has also faltered miserably. We killed a 14 year-old under blazing gun fire; we have hundreds who died in custody; we have elections that are neither free nor fair. We have newspapers licensed to defame and destroy political opponents. We have a Parliament that prides itself as a destroyer of free speech rather than as defender of the privileges of MPs to speak without fear.

What is it then, this new political order that has emerged? When the spirit is weak, the flesh can only be so willing. Today, the sick body of this nation is medicated on an emerging dangerous political order – it is called fascism. How do I mean by fascism? Let me clarify to you so you can judge by yourself whether all these ring true to your ears.

A fascist state is a state which demands citizens’ loyalty at the expense of their liberty, chiefly by forcing on the people a particular, socially restrictive political principle as the national, state aspiration, in which groups that are associated with superiority are entitled to wield their authority and prevail over groups that are associated with inferiority, effectively rejecting the concept of the equality of all human beings. Fascism has great pretensions for reform and healing, but in truth, it is radically reactionary and will bound people to a dependency habit. In order for fascism to achieve its aim, the might of the state shall take precedence over the rights of the populace, and fear is effectively enforced through the use of unjust laws and other control mechanisms, even outright violence. There are no great balancing acts in a fascist state, the state elites are all the balance you will ever get.

A fascist state will always have a penchant for abusing religious or ethnic identities, where they are moulded into what I would call a culture of supremacism – distorting, deforming and cheapening the sacred core values of our beliefs and cultural traditions beyond all recognition, so that they can be sold off as the ultimate political drug. It certainly plays on fears and anxieties, and when you are frightened enough, the fascists will give you the blue pill to lull you further, or the red pill, to lull you further – it all depends on the current availability of colouring agents you see, which probably depends on the amount of kickbacks the companies of the colouring agents are willing to part with. Certainly, when ethnicity or religiosity is sold off for political power, self-redemption for their dependencies becomes very expensive and almost unattainable. If there is no proper medical intervention, sooner or later, such a nation will end up overdosing on its own self-prescribed medications, whether in blue or red, it does not really matter if you are dead.

To this effect, fascism often will organise governance based on a structure where people are separated and divided into groups, where equality and fairness are denied to all, and rewards are reserved only for the favoured ones. One class of citizens would be organised to be superior to others, with more rights than others. It is essentially a dictatorship that glorifies itself, its leaders and their wives; and deploys reactionary policies that are chauvinistic through the use of force and fear. Carrots for those who say yes; sticks, canes, punches, blows, water-cannons, exile or indefinite detention for those who dare to resist.

The lifeline of fascism is the culture of supremacism, fixated on threats posed by an inferior enemy. Therein lies the ultimate fascist paradox – if an enemy is inherently inferior, how is it then that he becomes a threat? But just think about this: without an enemy, what would a supremacist do, what could a fascist do? All these antics, from the detention ISA to the performances of the Gang Kepala Lembu, are all part of an exercise to manufacture the enemy, because the manufacture of consent is no longer as easy as it used to be. Supremacism is not about affirmative policy or positive discrimination, it is the demand for absolute power without earning them, without just reason. Supremacism is always a fascist’s best friend.

For me, this is the reality of our political leadership today. Like it or not, Malaysia today is indeed an emerging fascist state; the slogan 1Malaysia is all but a ruse. Anyone who opposes the regime of 1Malaysia is a subversive, that convenient enemy who must be destroyed and crushed. Certainly, if the people of this country want change and would like to restore the will of the people, we have to fight this fascism together. We, the common people must stand up to this fascist onslaught. We cannot depend on the rich and powerful for this.

Nevertheless, I am certain that many of us do find it disturbing that small sections of the rakyat are still clinging onto the old regime. What then, should we tell repressed people who do not care or are not sufficiently aware or are simply too frightened? I think we have to hoist up the antennae. We certainly must continue to fight against the multibillion-dollar rent-seeking and corruption ‘industry’, the abuse of power, the violations of rights, the loss of land and homes, the marginalisation of communities, the poor governance, the vanity of our leaders and their family members. But strategically, I believe we must also begin to aggressively communicate on the long-term impacts of such governance on a healthy nation. Our quest for justice must ultimately be able to send the message loud and clear that the mismanagement of a nation-state will eventually end it as a failed state. A country that has compromised the Spirit of the Constitution opens up the path towards becoming a failed state. A fascist state guarantees its own failure, because there are no rehabs for fascists.

3. The Failing Nation State

But then, can a well-functioning state begin to fail? Allow me then to share with you a story.

Once upon a time, there was this country, which at the time of its independence met many of the requirements of a modern nation state. Even a few decades before its independence, it was impressive on many accounts. Its legislature began to be elected before the 1920s; women began to vote even before colonisation ended, while improvements in public health more than doubled its population between the 1920s and the 1940s. It has been noted that this country’s levels of physical and human capital exceeded most other nations’ in the region and that it was not seen as having fundamental economic weaknesses relating to “geography, natural resources or other physical endowments”.

A report commented that if a composite index of human development were to be constructed in 1938 on the basis of per capita GDP, demographic data and educational enrolments among others, this country would be ranked second in its continent. Even two other states with higher per capita GDP, could not outperform this one state in terms of education enrolment rates. Indeed, this concerned nation has had a long tradition in education – its two oldest universities until today are still in dispute as to which one of them deserves the title of the continent’s oldest university – one established in 1595 but was temporarily shut down in the 18th century, another established in 1611 and had only been interrupted during World War 2.

By the time this nation reached independence, economists have noted with respect that the country’s “civil institutions were comparatively well developed… it possessed a reasonably democratic political system… Its judiciary and legal system were quite well-developed and somewhat independent. Its press was open and vigorous. Finally... [it] possessed ample agricultural land to sustain several decades of rapid agricultural growth.”

Thus in the 1950s, this country continued to register a higher income per capita than other states in the continent, with the exception of four states, one of which was, Malaya. Even then, annual fluctuations showed that its income per capita would occasionally surpass that of Malaya’s. It was not until between the 1960s and the 1970s that this young entity Malaysia, actually managed to take them over with certainty. Poor Hong Kong women came here to work as domestic helpers in the homes of their rich. Incidentally, the country had also built Asia’s first commercial airline and it of course, continued to house some of its finest universities. This prosperity then continued well until the early 1960s.

Then, something happened.

One neighbouring nation after another moved past it in income per capita. Taiwan and South Korea began to outdo it in the 1960s, Thailand in the second half of the 1970s, Indonesia around the mid-1980s and finally China in the 1990s. Soon, it is predicted, even Vietnam may overtake this country in terms of per capita income. There were large fiscal deficits, rapid inflations, and it was simply failing in attracting high levels of foreign direct investments. Its economy began to be in a state of decline. The business environment was described by a local economist to be lacking in the “stability of the rules” and “enforcement of these rules”.

In wake of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, its pride and joy, the national airline, became one big corporate failure, was entered into receivership and had to fully cease operations to Europe and the Middle East. By the end of the 20th century, in East Asia, its income per capita exceeded only Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, North Korea and Myanmar. This glum was painted by two scholars: “state weakness is manifest in uncollected taxes and uncontrolled crime, bloated bureaucracies and denuded forests, low teacher salaries, and high emigration rates.”

Today, this country suffers a mass exodus of its workforce of varying skills – doctors, engineers, nurses, entertainers, waiters, helpers – to North America, Europe, the Middle East and of course to East Asian countries like Hong Kong, where many of their women work as domestic helpers. It is a good thing that despite of it all, unlike us, the country’s workforce continue to speak an international language with a high level of fluency, allowing around 11 percent of its population to be abroad, remitting funds for their families that form more than 10 percent of its GDP annually – in 2008, this was close to US$ 16 billion . This is what the nation is forced to survive on today.
As for its civil and state institutions, the same local economist has noted, “even the courts of law, are so weak and compromised by corruption that the rule-of-law, or its figment, clings for dear life,” on the inaugural oath of each new head of state to uphold the law, for there is absence in institutional backup in its legislature and judiciary. Extra judicial killings and forced disappearances are worryingly high, commonly targeted at dissident political leaders and activists; but even journalists and the clergy have not been spared. The death toll from 2006 to 2007 alone was reportedly to be more than 270 persons in a country of 90 million.

I think we all by now could already guess the country’s name: the Republic of the Philippines. And we all know what happened. One executive Marcos arose in their midst in the 1960s and stayed on until 1986, when the people forced him and his family to flee, reportedly with 300 crates of prized possessions containing cash, jewels, artwork, documents and other items. Some alleged that they even took gold bricks with them, or so the stories went. He is now gone and dead, but neither the country has fully recovered nor the billions have been fully recovered.

4. Liberty & Justice for Economic Stability

It is in fact fairly easy for a fit nation to start failing, lots of other countries have done it before, not just the Philippines. Malaysia too today, is an ailing, failing nation state. We could perhaps choose to go all the way then, since our leaders have at times insinuated that too much democracy, openness and liberty may be a bad thing for a country, as if too much autocracy, oligarchy or oppression is actually good for a country. But while they have implied that more freedom may result in economic instability, they will never tell you for instance, how more democracy has actually revived South Korean society. South Korean reformation movement poured out on the streets of Gwangju on May 18, 1980 and finally won the country back in Seoul in 1987 – seven long years to topple a military dictatorship, with all the blood that we are often made to associate with more economically-challenged nations. Today in Asia, the South Korean economy is only second to Japan and yet it is not uncommon to see peaceful assemblies and protests taking place on the streets of Seoul, amid tall skyscrapers, beautiful parks and clean streets.

Our leaders will also not want us to appreciate the fact that even Indonesia, a decade after its reformation, has now begun to show signs of healing. Based on Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perceptions Index , its score had steadily climbed from 2.3 in 2007 to 2.6 in 2008 to 2.8 in 2009, as Malaysia steadily slipped from 5.1 in 2007 and 2008 to 4.5 in 2009. In terms of international ranking, Indonesia has also achieved the greatest improvement amongst ASEAN countries, as it gradually climbed from No.143 in 2007 to No. 126 in 2008 and finally to No. 111 in 2009 as Malaysia dipped (again) from No. 43 in 2007 to No. 47 in 2008 to No. 56 in 2009 – the fall of nine places making us as ‘the highest achiever of going backwards in terms of corruption perceptions’ in the ASEAN region during 2008-2009.

So you see, it is really not that difficult to be a failed nation; you can have a 3, 6, 9 or even a 12-step programme for this. But the programme tends to always begin with the same first step – executive interference on the legislature and judiciary, which disrupts the delivery of justice and liberty, resulting in compromised legal and judicial institutions. Once these institutions are done with, all things can be up for sale – your money, your land, your life, even. Dictators certainly recognise that an assault on the Spirit of the Constitution is their way to go. That infamous M – Marcos I mean, when the 1935 Constitution denied him a third term in office, he simply declared martial law which suspended the country’s Constitution altogether in 1972. He had it then replaced with a new version which granted him a term of six years with no limit to the number of terms. By breaking the Spirit, this is really how you break a body.

Similarly, for a reforming country, the restoration of the Spirit calls for the restoration for justice and liberty. South Korea’s newfound freedom today is filled by state-sponsored foundations working on to promote just that – the May 18 Foundation, the South Korean Democracy Foundation, the South Korean Human Rights Foundation. I personally cannot wait to see such foundations see the light of day in this country.

5. Standing up & Fighting on

In the meantime then, we have to stand up against our elites and oligarchs who are deluding themselves into supporting this government by saying that they are doing so for the sake of their Bangsa, Negara and Agama. The truth is they are just protecting their positions and wealth. I say to them enjoy your wealth while you can, but don’t ever try to justify your lack of courage, your greed and hunger for power by claiming that you know what is good for the people. You don’t know. The people of Malaysia will decide what is good for them.

This fight for justice must come from all quarters of our society. The opposition parliamentarians are under siege today. Those of lesser will, will cross over to support the BN government; those remaining standing are bullied by the majority, resulting in the impossibility of proper debates on policies and the law. The Standing Orders are used indiscriminately to punish freedom of speech by the parliamentarians and to scuttle them from speaking on issues that the people want to hear. The Police continue to harass the Opposition parties – already 15 opposition leaders are being questioned on possible charges of sedition; yet UMNO leaders spout racist remarks on a daily basis with impunity. Even ceramah are frequently not allowed, and even if permitted, they would sometimes be stopped halfway depending on what was said by the speakers. BN ceramah, on the other hand, are given free rein. Nothing was done to stop those blatant lies about me spewing forth from the speeches of UMNO leaders and their newspapers and TVs – while we had all wanted to debate on policy and governance, they produced for you poorly doctored photographs – just imagine how low elections standards have sunk in this country, they could not even doctor photographs decently! The people of Malaysia must be brave to say no this evil government. The dirty and scrupulous politics started by Mahathir must come to an end.

Pakatan Rakyat will not promise the earth and the moon if it comes to power. But I can say one thing for sure. We will not destroy this country by our greed, we will respect human rights and dignity, we will take more care of the marginalised and the poor, we will encourage a free media and we will nurture democracy back to life. Equally important – you are all free to monitor us. And slowly but surely then, persons of goodwill, honour and integrity will rule again in our courts, our civil service, our law enforcement force. Parliament will be the place where we can bare the truth about the state of the country and its finances – our military procurements, our oil and gas wells and all of Petronas’ affairs. We are worth your sacrifice and support. We will breathe again the Spirit into the body of this nation.

So let us tell to all the fence sitters out there: Justice must be delivered and seen to be delivered in this country, or else, this Spirit will soon leave this battered body of a failing nation-state to rot. I think we can effectively call this, suicide (and it is illegal in this country). The only way forward for us now is to continue healing and nourishing this ailing Spirit of the Constitution, so it could live a full life again. Who again is this Spirit of the Constitution? Justice, liberty and equity are in fact more than instincts of the Spirit of the Constitution – they are the Spirit of the Constitution – because when all things considered, it is instinct that creates and drives meaning into any spirit, effectively giving it consciousness.

Foot Notes:

1.Please see Nelson, Robert H (2007) The Philippine Economic Mystery.
Available at http://www.econ.upd.edu.ph/dp/index.php/dp/article/viewFile/24/27

2.Anne Booth, “Did It Really Help to be a Japanese Colony?: East Asian Economic Performance in Historical Perspective,” Asia Research Institute, Working Paper No. 43 (June 2005), p. 21. Cited in 1.

3.Arsenio Balisacan and Hal Hill, “An Introduction to the Key Issues,” in Balisican and Hill, eds., The Philippine Economy: Development, Policies, and Challenges (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 3. Cited in 1.

4.Please see 1.

5.Raul Fabella, “The J2K Crisis and the Economy: The Broader Context,” School of Economics, University of the Philippines, Discussion Paper No. 0012 (December 2000), pp. 2-3. Cited in 1.

6.Patricio N. Abinales and Donna J. Amoroso, State and Society in the Philippines (Pasig City, Philippines: Anvil, 2005), pp. 1-2. Cited in 1.

7.http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2008/10/13/afx5548834.html

8.http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40582

9.http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19860322&id=tVQNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Q24DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3795,6490037

10.http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/component/content/article/86-special-reports/11955-messy-record-of-pcggs-failure-to-recover-wealth; http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jul1999/phil-j20.shtml

11.http://www.transparency.org./

12.http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20090615-210479/Remembering-the-1973-and-1986-turbulence; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Philippines.


寻求公正

寻求公正

再益.依布拉欣 (Zaid Ibrahim)

(编者按: 柔佛州人民之友 (FOS) 和印度族群的非政府组织大红花之友(Persahabatan Semparuthi)于2010年5月15日联合举办“从霹雳大臣双胞案,谈大马宪政危机”座谈会。这篇中文稿是辞去內阁部长职的再益, 在座谈会上讲话的主要內容。)

1.宪法的精神
2.新兴的法西斯国家
3.在衰败中的国家
4. 经済稳定得靠自由与公正
5.大家应站起來 进行抗争

1.宪法的精神


我国是一个建基于自由公正的民主国家。 多年來, 我国宪法为保障我国人民自由平等作出了贡献。 通过宪法, 我们希望能在公民以及各族群之间建立起密切关系, 并为不同利益群体之间保持制约均衡的格局。

不幸的是, 在这个国家, 民主与法治已不复存在, <>的精神也丧失了。
今天, 我国政府是一个由少数人组成的寡头政治集团所掌控的政府。 他们利用暴力维持这个国家。 他们不惜任何代价维護自己的既得利益。 因此, 目前我国遭受了在本国历史上最严重的损失。 “宪法精神”也遭到了破坏。

什么是 “宪法精神”?

英国著名法官丹宁勋爵, 在他的著作<家庭的故事>中指出, 宪法精神的第一个因素是: 寻求公正的本能。 权利 (而不是强权) 才是社会的真正根基。 第二个因素是: 争取自由的本能。 自由意志(而不是强制) 是治国的真正根基。 这些因素虽然都是抽象的概念, 但是, 社会各阶层具有正义感或公平思想的人士, 都能理解和感觉到它们的存在。 还有第三个因素就是: 在权利和义务, 以及权力和保障之间所保持的平衡。 这种平衡狀态, 使权利和权力不被滥用或超越。

公正和自由提供了稳定的局面, 使局面不受政治, 野心等干扰。 强权、暴力、和不公平则会破坏所建立起來的政权。 如果一个国家接受暴力和不公平等这些价值观, 这国家迟早会完蛋。

令人感到悲哀的是, 宪法精神现在只能在法律书籍中阅读到。 我国法官是宪法的守護者, 一旦被剥夺了权力, 这个国家就开始走向自我灭亡的道路。 1988年, 宪法所规定的司法权被削弱, 原本尊贵的法官, 因被 “收编” 而落得个身败名裂的可悲境地。 从此, 我国人民对自由和公正的响往和期望也落空了。

从那个时候起, 大家对司法界一直都感到失望。 那是因为, 一些联邦法官竟然毫不汗颜地宣判: 三权分立的民主概念, 不是我国宪法的特征之一。 并且还宣判: 州议会议长无权決定某个州议席悬空。 其实, 州宪法明文规定议长是有权这么做的。 今天, 有些法官甚至裁決: 立宪君主可以罢免民選的州务大臣。 实际上, 法律条文写得很清楚: 州务大臣的去留, 不是由我国君主所決定的。

为什么我国会失去方向? 那是因为我国宪法遭受破坏。 对我们來说, 那是个致命伤。 目前, 这个国家百病丛生, 需要紧急措施來援救。 我们已迷失了方向, 那是因为我们的国家病了。 首先,在精神上有毛病, 接着躯体也有了毛病。

2.新兴的法西斯国家

由马哈迪统治了23年, 后來由他的得意门生纳吉。拉萨接任, 我国就变成了目前这个样子。 我们失去了民主。 从此, 我国也失去了明辨是非的能力。 14岁的孩子被枪杀。 数以百计的人在警察扣留所死亡。 我们的選举制度不自由也不公平。 我们的报章可以任意诽谤和摧毁政治对手。 我们的国会剥夺议员的言论自由, 还为此而引以为豪。 国会不再捍卫议员在国会中无畏无惧发言的特权。

今天, 这个病态的国家染上了危险的政治病。 这种政治病叫做 “法西斯主义”。

法西斯主义

如何理解 “法西斯主义”呢? 让我解释一番, 由你自己判断, 是否是事实。

法西斯国家要求人民对它效忠, 但它却剥夺人民的自由权利。 它强迫人民接受一种特殊的、施加种种限制的政治原则。 优越的一组人有权压制他们认为较为劣等的另一组人。 不接受人人平等的观念。

法西斯主义者为他们的所谓 “改革” 进行包裝, 其实, 那是极端反动的政策。 它使人民产生依赖性。法西斯主义者为了达到目的, 他们使用国家强权剥夺人民的权利。 他们通过不合理的法律和其他机制, 甚至利用赤裸裸的暴力, 在人民大众中制造恐惧心理。 在一个法西斯国度里, 各方权益不能达致平衡, 只有国家统治精英的权益, 才得到照顾。

法西斯国家特別嗜好滥用宗教或种族主义。 他们塑造种族优越论的思想与文化。 他们彻底歪曲、扭曲神圣的信仰和文化传统的核心价值, 然后把他们当作政治万灵药。 他们利用人民的恐惧心理和害怕心理, 利用种族主义和宗教为资本, 巧夺政权。

为了达到他们的目的, 法西斯主义者的施政方針, 是建立在这样的结构上: 对人民实施分而治之的手段, 否定人民享有公平与平等权利, 只把权利保留给少数特权子分享。 他们把特定阶层视为更优越于其他阶层, 让特定阶层享有更多更大的权利。

本质上, 法西斯主义是一种专政制度。 他们颂扬和美化领袖和夫人; 通过暴力和恐惧來实施反动的沙文主义政策。 阿谀奉承者得到奬励; 而那些敢于进行抗争者, 面对的则是: 警棍、水炮、被驱逐出境、或遭受无限期拘留。

法西斯主义者的生命线就是种族优越论。 他们具有恐惧心理, 担心受到劣等敌人的威胁。 这就是法西主义者反常和极为矛盾之處。 如果敌人是劣等的, 那他们怎能构成威胁呢? 大家想想: 如果沒有敌人, 种族优越论者能做些什么呢? 他们的荒唐行为, 如: 援用<內安法令>扣留人、拋置“牛头”事件等, 都是为了制造假想敌。 种族优越论并不是扶弱政策, 而是为了毫无合法理由地强求獲得绝对权力。 种族优越论是法西斯主义最好的朋友。 这就是我国当今政治领袖的真实写照。

今天, 马來西亚确实是一个新兴的法西斯国家。 “一个马來西亚” 的口号只是一种欺骗伎俩。 任何人反对 “一个马來西亚” 就是颠覄分子, 必须加以打压和毁灭。

如果我国人民要求改革, 要恢复人民的意志, 我们必须一同和法西斯主义抗争。 我们普通的人民必须站起來, 反对法西斯主义者的进攻。 在这场抗争中, 我们不能依赖财雄势大者。 虽然还有一部分人眷恋旧政权, 或不能认清现实, 但是, 我们必须向他们伸出触须, 团结他们, 继续坚持反对: 数以亿计的寻租和贪污腐败的 “工业” 、滥用权势、侵犯人权、掠夺土地和家园、使某些社群边缘化、恶劣的施政手法、国家领袖以及其家庭成员的狂傲和虚荣心。

我们鍥而不捨的寻求公正, 最终会传达一个消息: 一个国家如果治理不当, 最后將导致衰败。 破坏宪法精神的国家, 正走向国家衰败的道路。 法西斯国家注定要失败, 因为法西斯主义者已病入膏肓, 无药可救。

3.在衰败中的国家

菲律宾可作为例子说明, 我国正步其后尘, 走向衰败。 独立前, 菲律宾具有优良的立法、卫生保健措施、和教育制度。 人力资源远远超越这个区域的其他国家。 独立时, 菲律宾有个民主政治制度, 司法制度已发展得很健全, 新闻自由开放, 农业迅速发展, 人均收入比其他国家來得高 (但还比不上马來亚等四个国家)。

但是, 从60年代开始, 它就逐渐衰退了。 财政出现赤字, 通货膨胀快速, 不再能够吸引外资, 经済日愈衰退。 1997 亚洲经済风暴, 使它的经済每況愈下, 人均收入迅速下降, 治安失控, 官僚机构膨胀到无法收拾的地步, 大事砍代森林, 大量人才外流 (如:医生、工程师、护士等等)。 11%人口流连在国外, 打工赚钱, 寄钱回国养家糊口。 今天, 这个国家得依赖达美金160亿的外汇过活。 他们的法庭, 极其脆弱, 沉湎于贪污, 法治几乎不复存在。 他们对付反对党领袖和积极分子, 连新闻从业员也不放过。

1986年, 统治国家达26年的马可斯总统, 带着妻儿逃离国土, 隨身带了300箱的金銀财宝。 虽然他已死了, 但是, 国家经済至今仍然无法复元。

4. 经済稳定得靠自由与公正

一个健全的国家要走向衰败, 并不难。 今天, 马來西亚是一个正在走向衰败的国家。 我国有可能步菲律宾的后尘。 我国领袖有时说, 我国太民主, 太开放或太自由, 这对国家不利。 他们似乎认为, 独裁政体、少数人掌控政权的寡头政治、和鎮压行动等, 对我国有利。

他们在暗示, 给予人民更大的自由, 將导致经済不稳定。 但是, 他们从不告诉人民, 自由开放如何使韩国经済复苏。 1980年, 韩国改革运动于5月18日, 举行大规模示威。 经过7年艰苦奋斗, 终于在韩国首都首尔, 推翻了军事统治。 今天, 韩国的经済仅次于日本。 但是, 大家可以看到, 在首尔, 和平集会和示威游行, 是司空见惯的事。

大马反贪指数在滑落

我们的国家领袖也不要我们知道, 即使在印尼, 改革运动已有10 年了, 经済现在已出现了转机。 根据 “国际透明组织” 的反贪常年指数, 印尼的反贪指数已提高, 由2007年的2.3 增加到2008年的2.6; 又在2009 年提高到2.8. [2.3 – 2.6 – 2.8] 但是, 马來西亚刚刚相反, 不进反退, 从2007和2008年的5.1, 滑落到2009年的4.5. [5.1 – 4.5]

以国际标准來说, 在亚细安国家中, 在反贪方面, 印尼取得了最大的成就。 印尼从2007年排名145, 普升至2008年的第126名, 进而在2009年取得了第111名。 [145 – 126 – 111]

然而, 马來西亚却刚刚相反, 一直在退步。 从2007的第43名, 跌落到2008 年的第47名, 又再滑落到2009 年的第56名。 [43 – 47 - 56] 可以看出, 我国的反贪工作完全沒有进展, 反而在倒退。 值得注意的是, 2008-2009年, 在亚细安国家的反贪指数倒退行列中, 我国高居首位, 确实可悲。

国家衰败的发展过程中的第一个步骤就是, 行政干预立法和司法。 这导致法律界和司法界放弃原则, 向政府妥协了。 他们被 “收编” 了, 一切都可出卖。 独裁者很清楚, 必须侵袭宪法精神, 才能达到他的目的。 当臭名昭彰的马可斯发觉到, 在1935年的宪法下, 他不能连任第三届总统时, 他就在1972年, 宣布实施军法统治, 完全中止国家宪法, 继而采用新宪法, 授权总统每届可连任6年, 并且可任意连任, 沒有期限。

5.大家应站起來 进行抗争

我们必须挺身而出, 反抗统治精英和少数寡头政客。 他们在自欺欺人, 说什么他们所做的一切, 都是为了 “民族, 国家和宗教”。 实际上, 他们是在维护他们私自的地位和财富。 他们为他们的怯懦, 贪婪和争权夺利而辩护。 他们声称懂得人民要些什么。 其实, 人民自己能決定要的是什么。

社会各阶层人士都必须参加到追求公正的抗争队伍中來。 目前, 反对党国会议员正面对围困。 那些意志较薄弱的议员, 可能会跳槽, 支持或加入国阵。 其余能站稳立场的议员, 正在国阵的淫威下受到欺压。 他们因而无法对国家政策和法律, 进行认真的辩论。

国会<会议常规> 经常被利用來剥夺国会议员的言论自由, 阻挠他们评述人民所要了解的课题。 警察部队则从未间断地骚扰反对党。 至今, 已经有15名反对党领袖在<煽动法令>下受到盘问。 可是, 巫统头头几乎每天都在喋喋不休地发表种族主义言论, 警方却充耳不闻, 无动于中。 反对党的小型集会经常不允许召开。 他们即使得到集会准证, 有时集会还在进行时, 从中受到阻挠, 这主要看演讲者谈的是什么课题。

国阵所举行的集会却几乎完全不受到约束。 当局从來不阻止巫统领袖、报章、和电视明目张胆地撒谎, 針对我个人,大事人身攻击。 大马人民必须勇于对这罪恶政权说不。

如果民联执政的话, 我们將尊重人权, 多多照顾那些被边缘化的人群和贫困者。 我们將鼓励媒体自由, 恢复民主。 同等重要的是, 你们必须监督我们。

那些猶豫不決者要切记: 国家必须主持公正; 并且必须让大家看到, 我国在主持公正。 否则, 这个逐渐衰败中的国家, 其灵魂將离开躯体, 而躯体將开始腐烂。 我们可以称之为 “自杀”。 我们唯一可以走的道路就是, 不断治疗和滋养这个患病的 “宪法精神”。

Monday, 10 May 2010

The tussle between the Sultan of Perak and the Menteri Besar

Constitutional Crisis in Perak

-The tussle between the Sultan of Perak and the Menteri Besar

(Editor Note: A Senior lawyer PK Yang, upon the request from the forum organizing committee, has provide this summary of an article of the retired Court of Appeal Judge NH Chan. A compilation of this article as well as papers of the panelists will be made available at the Forum.)

(Note: The retired Court of Appeal Judge NH Chan wrote an analytical article entitled “The pretended power of dispensing with the law by regal authority – as perceived in the tussle between the Sultan of Perak and the Menteri Besar”. This is a summary of the article in a form that any ordinary person can read and understand -- Yang Pei Keng 15-5-2010.)

What has happened in Perak?

The well-respected former Judge NH Chan expressed his opinion openly that the Sultan of Perak as a constitutional monarch has no executive power. He has only discretion in the performance of his duty as a constitutional monarch.

The Sultan acted unconstitutionally when he exercised the executive power when solving the constitutional issues in the state of Perak, thereby creating a constitutional crisis in Perak.

The constitutional crisis came about as a result of the fight initiated by the Barisan Nasional for wresting political power from Pakatan Rakyat, the ruling coalition in the State of Perak after the March 8 General Election in 2008.

On 4 February 2009, the Pakatan Menteri Besar of Perak Mohamad Nizar, sought an audience with the Sultan of Perak, seeking the consent to dissolve the Perak State Assembly because three of their legislative members became turncoats.

On the following day, the Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak, requested for an audience with the Sultan. He informed the Ruler that Barisan now had the majority in the state assembly. The Sultan then summoned all the 31 assemblymen to verify the information. Based on such information, the Sultan decided not to dissolve the state government as requested by the Pakatan Menteri Besar Mohamad Nizar .

“… the Sultan ordered … Nizar …to resign from his post as Perak Menteri Besar together with the members of the state executive council with immediate effect. If …Nizar… does not resign … then the posts of Menteri Besar and state executive council are regarded as vacant.”
(The Star 6-2-2009)


What is wrong with that?

It is wrong for the Sultan to see Najib alone without Nizar being present. In law, it is improper to see an interested party alone without the other side being present.
It was only after Najib had seen the Sultan that the Sultan informed Nizar that he had decided not to dissolve the state legislative assembly.

This was a fatal error that would affect the Sultan’s reputation and integrity. The general public might think that he was biased.

Nizar (as Menteri Besar of Perak) had requested the Sultan to dissolve the state legislative assembly. He has thereby admitted that he no longer commands the confidence of the majority in the assembly. The Ruler has a discretion not to grant it: Article XVIII (2)(b).

But the personal discretion (to grant or not to grant the request) should be exercised without any suggestion from any outsider. Otherwise, it would create an impression that he was partial to one political party. As the saying goes, justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done.

“It is … of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” (Chief Justice Hewitt)

“Justice must be rooted in confidence: and confidence is destroyed when right minded people go away thinking: ‘The judge was biased’.” [Lord Denning (1969)]

That is why the people of Malaysia have been saying harsh words of the Sultan. They go away thinking that he has been influenced by Najib, or that he has favoured Barisan Nasional. It does not matter whether he did in fact favour one side unfairly.

The Ruler has acted unconstitutionally

The Sultan is a constitutional monarch. He has no power to rule, but he has a couple of discretionary powers mentioned in the Perak State Constitution (that is, the discretionary power to appoint Mentri Besar, and to withhold consent to a request to dissolve the legislative assembly: Article XVIII (2) .

The Sultan has no power to order Nizar “to resign …together with the state executive council with immediate effect”. Nor has he the power to declare that “the posts of Mentri Besar and state executive council are regarded as vacant.”

In former times, the executive government was the King. In present day Perak, the executive power is in the hands of the Executive Council of the legislative assembly.

It was lawful for Mentri Besar Nizar to request for the dissolution of the state legislative assembly. But the Ruler turned down his request.

Under the law, the Mentri Besar has no choice but “to tender the resignation of the Executive Council”: Article XVIII (6). It was for the Mentri Besar to “tender the resignation of the Executive Council”. But the Sultan chose to ignore these provisions of the Constitution of Perak. He ordered the Mentri Besar to resign from his post, when he has no power to do so.

If the Mentri Besar ceased “to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly” the Ruler has the power to appoint another “who, in his judgment, is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly”: Article XVI(2)(a). This is a personal discretion of the Ruler.


No need to order Nizar to resign


Since the Ruler has the power to appoint another person as Mentri Besar to replace Nizar, there is no need for the Sultan to order Nizar to resign at all. This is a pretended show of power when in fact there is no such power.

The Mentri Besar Nizar should be allowed to tender the resignation of the Executive Council, without being hurried by the regal authority exercising a pretended power. The laws of the Constitution of Perak should be administered even handedly. But they were administered unequally, giving the impression that preferential treatment was shown to some persons.

The executive branch of the government cannot ignore the people’s call for justice and fair play. It can ignore the public opinion at its own peril. Unwillingness to heed the demands of public opinion can result in the loss of the mandate of the populace in the next election.




ANNEXURE 1

‘The Independence of the Judges’

(The keynote speech by Dato’ N H Chan, the retired judge of the Court of Appeal during MyConstitution campaign conducted in Perak recently. This is a summary of the speech made easy for any ordinary person to understand.)
Yang Pei Keng - 15 May 2010

Many judges do not seem to know

What does the term ‘the independence of the judges’ mean?

It appears that there are many of our judges today who do not seem to know the true meaning of “separation of powers” in constitutional law. This is most apparent especially among those judges in the higher echelon of the judicial hierarchy.

The bad judges seem to think that independence means that they can do what they like. The recalcitrant judges think that words can mean whatever they want them to mean. They think they could ignore the federal and the Perak constitutions, even the statutes enacted by Parliament, so long as they side with the government in power.

By so doing, these judges have exposed themselves because they have refused to perform their duty, which is to do justice according to law. It is their duty to do the right thing. The right thing to do is to deal out impartial justice and to apply the law of the land as it stands.

The notion of separation of powers, or the independence of the judges, seems to be beyond the comprehension of these judges.

When it comes to explaining the law so that it could be easily understood, the late Lord Denning had no equal. He explains the concept The independence of the judges in the following words:

“The keystone of the rule of law in England (and elsewhere) has been the independence of the judges. It is the only respect in which we make any real separation of powers. There is here no rigid separation between the legislative and the executive powers, because the ministers, who exercise the executive power, also direct a great deal of the legislative power of Parliament. But the judicial power is truly separate.

No member of the government, no member of Parliament, and no official of any government department, has any right whatever to direct or to influence or to interfere with the decisions of any of the judges. It is this knowledge that gives the people their confidence in the judges … The critical test which they must pass if they are to receive the confidence of the people is that, they must be independent of the executive.” [See ‘The Family Story’, at pp.191,192]

Rigid separation of powers


Shortly stated, the independence of the judges means that there is a rigid separation of powers between executive power and judicial power. The critical test which every judge must pass is that he must be independent of the executive. If a judge does not appear to be independent of the executive then he will lose the confidence of the people.

Haven’t you heard the often repeated remark, ‘I don’t respect our judges any more’ among the people of this country, ever since the Perak debacle exploded onto the local scene? Why do the people feel so strongly about this? It is because the keystone of the rule of law has been the independence of the judges.

Anyone can be a judge. All that you need is to be fair-minded yourself. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

The other attribute of a judge is to administer justice according to law. Justice means that the judge’s duty is to do the right thing. The right thing to do is to deal out impartial justice. The right thing to do is also to apply the law as it stands.

The so-called Perak crisis has brought out a host of cases that showed that the judges gave the impression that they were one-sided. The perception of the people is that the judges sided with the BN government.

Proceedings in legislative assembly cannot be questioned in any court

‘The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court’: Article 72(1).

A classic example is the shocking case of Zambry v Sivakumar in the Federal Court. We all remember the infamous five (judges) [They were Alauddin Mohd Sheriff , Arifin Zakaria, Nik Hashim Ab Rahman, Augustine Paul and Ahmad Makinnuddin].

They decided in favour of the BN-appointed Mentri Besar Zambry. They held that the speaker of the Perak legislative assembly (V Sivakumar) has no power to suspend Zambry and six executive council members from attending the assembly.

This is a perverse decision of the Federal Court. It is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of the Federal Constitution.

The words in Article 72(1) mean exactly what they say. Even a child can understand them. Yet the infamous five chose to ignore the plain meaning of the words. They gave their own meaning to them. They said, under the pretext of interpretation, that the constitutional provision did not allow the speaker to suspend the seven applicants.

The 5 Federal Court judges have failed the people when they chose to ignore the law of the constitution of Malaysia. The judges have refused to do justice according to law.

Who are they to say that the speaker was not allowed to suspend the MB and the turncoats, when the supreme law of the land says ‘the validity of any proceedings in the legislative assembly of any state shall not be questioned in any court’?’

Privileges of Parliament

They have ignored “the privileges of Parliament”. ‘The Houses of Parliament enjoy certain privileges. ... Erskine May says: ‘What is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be enquired into in a court of law ’[See Lord Denning: The Family Story’, p.192]

Even ‘The Bill of Rights 1688, says that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.’: art. 9, s 1.

Those judges who had made all those decisions on the Perak crisis have created the confusion by refusing to apply the law of the land as it stands.

But to the good judges and the dedicated lawyers and to all right thinking people of this country, I urge all of you not to give up the struggle. Keep on commenting on their conduct in court. Keep on writing articles about their decisions that do not apply the law of the land as it stands.


NH CHAN was admitted to the Bar in 1961 and was a lawyer for almost two decades before becoming a High Court judge. He was then elevated to the Court of Appeal before retiring in 2000. He is the author of two books, ‘Judging the Judges’ (2007) and ‘How to Judge the Judges’.

NH Chan has this to say about ISA and Sedition Act

“I don’t approve of the death penalty because it is a barbaric practice and not worthy of civilized behaviour, the ISA and the Sedition Act, because they are draconian laws, more in step with a dictatorship or a totalitarian form of government – such laws have no place in a democracy of a civlised nation.

However, during times of conflict of war, such laws are necessary to contain enemy aliens but only on an ad hoc basis. They should never be used against the citizens of a country. Only a tyrant in a dictatorship or a despotic king would inflict such laws on its own people. Civilized people do not do so….”

[From Loyarburok Interview: NH Chan (Part 2) – 25 Feb 2010]

NH Chan’s view on: power of the vote

Seething over the events that transpired in Perak and decisions of the apex court, he says that if Malaysians are upset with the state of the judiciary and think that the present crop of judges are not up to the mark, they should exercise the power of their vote to change the state of affairs in the country.


[From Loyarburok interview - “N H Chan: an inconvenient judge”
- 30 April 2010 ]

霹雳州苏丹和州务大臣之间的 争执焦点

霹雳州苏丹和州务大臣之间的

争执焦点




按语:本文是杨培根律师,应工委会要求,就一名已退休的著名法官的文章论点,整理而成的一篇文章。工委会将把这篇文章与“从霹雳大臣双胞案,谈大马宪政危机”论坛主讲人提供的论文,合在一起,编印成册,现场分发,作为有心人士研究和讨论论坛主题的参考材料。





[注: 退休上诉庭法官 NH CHAN, 針对霹雳州苏丹与州务大臣之间的争执焦点, 写了一篇內容充实的文章. 现摘录其文章主要內容, 方便读者理解与阅读 - 杨培根 2-5-2010.]



霹雳州发生了什么事?



备受尊崇的退休上诉庭法官NH Chan 公开表明他的看法认为: 霹雳苏丹作为一位立宪君主,是不能行使行政府行政权力的。立宪君主只能行使他所拥有的自由裁夺权。在處理霹雳州宪制问题时,苏丹行使了政府行政权力,那是不符合宪法的,因此而产生了霹雳州宪制危机。



民联在 2008年的308大选中, 贏得了霹雳州政权。霹雳州的宪制危机,正是由于国阵为了从民联手中夺回失去的州政权而引起的。  



2009年2月4日, 民联州务大臣尼查,谨见霹雳州苏丹,要求苏丹同意解散州立法议会,那是因为三名民联州议员突然叛党。 隔天,副首相纳吉也觐见苏丹。他告知苏丹,国阵已獲得大多数州议员的支持。苏丹随即召集全体31名州议员,以查明真相。根据这些情況,苏丹就決定, 不批准民联州务大臣尼查的请求,而不同意解散州议会。

    

"苏丹命令尼查和州行政委员会即刻辞去其职位。如果尼查等不呈辞,州务大臣和州行政委员会將视为悬空。" [见2009年2月6日英文<星报>]  



究竟錯在那里?



在法律上, 苏丹不适宜在尼查不在场的情況下, 单独接见纳吉. 在一方不在场的情況下, 单独接见一个具有利害关系的另一方, 那是不恰当的, 因为这种作法是不符合法律的. 显然, 苏丹是在接见纳吉后, 才告知尼查, 決定不解散州议会. 这是极其錯误的作法. 它將影响苏丹的名声和信誉.



尼查以州务大臣的身份, 要求苏丹解散州议会, 这等于说, 他已承认, 他不再獲得州议会大多数员的信任 [州宪法第18条 (2)(b)].



当一个人在行使其自由裁夺权 [如: 批准请求或不批准某人的请求]的时候, 他不应听信他人的意见. 不然, 它將令人产生一种印象, 以为他在偏袒某个政党. 就如至理名言所说的: "公正不但必须要主持, 而且公正也必须在众人眼中看來, 得以主持".



至为重要的是, “公正不但必须要主持, 而且公正也必须在众人眼中, 明显地和毫无疑问地看來, 得以主持.” [英国首席法官何维特的名言]



"公正必须根基于信心. 如果神精正常的人觉得 '法官偏袒’, 那么众人 [对法官] 的信心將被摧毁." [英国著名法官丹宁勋爵在1969年一个判例中的名言]



这就难怪我国人民針对这次的宪制危机, 对苏丹所扮演的角色, 发表了刺耳的言论. 他们觉得苏丹已受到纳吉的影响, 或者认为, 苏丹在偏袒国阵. 苏丹究竟有沒有这么做, 这一点在法律上, 是无关紧要的.



州统治者的谕令 不符合宪法



苏丹是一个立宪君主. 他沒有统治这国家的实权. 不过, 在霹雳州宪法下, 他拥有几项自由裁夺权 [即: 委任州务大臣,和不批准解散立法议会的权力] : 州宪法第18条(2).



但是, 苏丹并沒有权力谕令尼查 “由即日起, 州务大臣和州行政委员会必须辞职. 他也沒有权力宣布, 州务大臣和州行政委员会职位视为悬空”



昔日, 皇帝确实掌控治国大权. 但当今的霹雳州, 行政权力是掌握在州立法议会的行政委员会手中.



州务大臣有合法权力, 要求解散州立法议会. 但是, 苏丹拒绝了他的要求. 根据法律, 在这种情況下, 州务大臣毫无选择, 他必须命令 “行政委员会呈辞. ” [州宪法第18条(6)].



州务大臣必须这么做. 可是, 苏丹却选择不遵守这些州宪法条文, 自己命令州务大臣辞去其职位, 否则其职位將当作是悬空. 实际上, 苏丹并不拥有这样的权力.



如果州务大臣不再 “獲得州立法议会大多数议员的信任和支持”, 苏丹有权委任另一人为州务大臣, 只要他认为, 这人可能獲得大多数议员的任和支持[ 州宪法第16条(2)(a)]. 既然苏丹有权委任另一人为新州务大臣, 以取代现任州务大臣, 那么, 苏丹就沒有必要命令尼查辞职. 他这么做, 其实是在行使一种并不存在的权力, 一种虛假的权力.



原本应由州务大臣尼查和行政委员会自行辞去其职位, 而不需要苏丹行使不存在的皇权. 州宪法, 应公平实施. 然而, 州宪法并未得到公平的实施. 这就给人一种印象: 某些人獲得了特殊优待.



国家的行政机关, 不可忽视人民所提出的公正合理的要求. 如果忽视了这一点, 他们將自食其果. 不愿意听取公众舆论的诉求, 可能导致当权者在下届大选中失去人民的委托.









附件一


退休法官对 “司法独立” 的看法



(最近, 大马律师公会在霹雳州举办了 <推广宪法> 运动. 退休上诉庭法官拿督NH CHAN, 受邀发表基调演说. 下面摘录了他演词的主要內容, 方便一般读者阅读与理解 – 杨培根 2010 年 5月8日.)



什么是 “司法独立”?



"法官的独立性” 或 “司法独立” 的含意是什么呢?



今天, 我们的法官之中, 有许多似乎不懂得宪法下的 “三权分立” 基本原则的真正含义. 这种现象, 尤其在高层法官中, 是明显不过的了.



那些差劲的法官似乎认为, “独立” 的意思就是, 他们可以为所欲为. 不守规章的法官则认为, “文字” 的意思, 可由他们自己胡乱解释. 他们认为, 只要他们站在现任政府这一边, 他们就可以无视<联邦宪法> 和 <霹雳州宪法>. 既使这些法律都是由国会制订的, 他们也不在乎.



他们这样做, 己自我暴露. 他们沒负起其应有的职责, 即: 根据法律, 主持正义. 做正确的事, 是他们的职责所在. 他们必须不偏不倚地主持公正, 根据现有的法律审理案件. 可是, 这些法官似乎无法理解 “三权分立” 和 “司法独立” 的概念.



谈到善用简单易懂的语言來解释法律的法律专家, 则英国著名法官丹宁勋爵可说是首屈一指. 他是这样解释 “司法独立” 的概念的:



“英国 (或任何其他国家) 法治的根基就是司法独立. 有了司法独立, 才有真正的三权分立. 在立法权与行政权之间, 并沒有严格的分权 . 那是因为, 行使政府行政权的部长们, 也在大量行使国会立法权. 不过, 司法权才是真正分开而独立的.



不论是政府成员, 国会议员, 以及任何政府部门的官员, 都无权指使、影响、或者干预任何法官的裁定. 因为人民具有这些常识, 所以他们才对法官有信心... 如果法官要取得人民的信任, 他们必须通过一项決定性的考验, 那就是, 法官必须独立于行政权 (即: 不受政府的影响或指使). [见丹宁勋爵著: <家庭的故事> 第191,192 页]



严格的三权分立



简单地说, “司法独立” 的意思就是, 在行政权和司法权之间, 存在严格的分权. 对每位法官的決定性考验是, 他必须独立于行政机关.



如果一名法官在众人看來不是独立于政府的, 那么, 他將失去人民对他的信心. 自从我国发生了霹雳州有两名州务大臣的事件后, 你会常在民间听到这样一种说法: “我对我国法官已失去敬意”. 为什么人们会有这样强烈的反应呢? 那是因为一路來人们确认, 司法独立就是法治的根基.



其实, 谁都可以当法官; 所需要的是, 公平判断是非的能力. 如上面所说过的, 公正不但必须要主持, 而且在众人眼中, 公正必须看來得以主持. 法官另一项特质是就是, 必须根据现有法律, 不偏不倚地主持公正.



霹雳危机已产生了一系列案件. 这些案件表明, 法官已给人们一种印象: 他们是一边倒的. 在人们眼中, 他们偏袒国阵政府.



立法议会所采取的措施 不得受到法庭的质疑





“任何州立法议会的会议过程和措施, 是否有效, 法庭不得加以质疑” [<霹雳州宪法> 第72条(1)]



一个典型例子就是: 霹雳州的占比里起诉西哇古玛的联邦法院案件. 占比里是国阵委任的州务大臣; 西哇古玛则是民联州议会议长. 大家记忆猶新, 在这起案件中, 5名法官宣判, 国阵委任的州务大臣占比里胜诉. 他们确认, 霹雳州议会议长西哇古玛沒有权力, 暂停占比里和他的6名行政议员出席州议会会议.



这个联邦法院判例, 是不合情理法的. 它不合情理之處在于, 这判例明显违反联邦宪法.

宪法第72条(1) 的文字內容, 是淺白和容易理解的. 即使是一名儿童也能理解. 然而, 这5 名法官却无视这些淺白文字的意思. 他们对这些文字作出了他们自己的异样诠释. 在进行诠释的借口下, 他们说, 这项宪法条文并未授权议长, 暂停7人出席会议. 实际上, 这些法官把我国<联邦宪法>束之高阁. 他们拒绝根据宪法条文來主持公正.



我国最高大法 (即: 宪法) 清楚阐明: 州议会所进行的会议过程 (或采取的措施) 是否有效, 不得受到任何法庭的质疑. 在这种情況下, 他们怎能说, 议长无权暂停国阵州务大臣和叛党分子出席会议呢?





国会特权



在法律上, 国会享有某些特权... 法官们忽视了这些 “国会特权”. 俄斯金梅(注: 他是英国国会程序专家)说过: “在国会四面围墙內所说的一切, 或所做的一切, 不得在法庭中提出质疑.” [见丹宁勋爵著: <家庭的故事> 192页]



即使是英国著名的<1688年权利宣言> 也强调: “国会里的言论自由, 辩论自由, 和会议过程, 不得在国会外或在任何法庭提出质疑” : 第9 (1)条.



在霹雳宪制危机中, 这些法官发表了各种判词, 却不根据现有法律判案, 结果在司法界和法律界, 引起一片混乱.



不过, 退休法官NH Chan 恳请有良知的法官和具有献身精神的律师, 不要放弃斗争; 应一如既往地对这些法官在法庭的不合情理的行为, 提出批评; 应不断继续撰写文章, 針对那些无视现有法律的判決, 提出批评.



退休法官NH CHAN 小史:





1961 开始当执业律师. 执业近20年后, 被委为高庭法官. 2000年, 未退休前, 被提升为上诉庭法官. 他有两本著作: ‘Judging the Judges’ (2007) 和 ‘How to Judge the Judges’.



退休法官 NH Chan 的言论



  1. 退休法官NH Chan 对<內安法令>和<煽动法令>的独特看法


“我不同意判死刑, 因为那是一种野蛮的习惯做法; 它不应是文明人的作法. <內安法令>和<煽动法令>是严厉又殘酷的法律, 比较合乎独裁或专制政府的口味. 这类法律不应存在于一个文明国家的民主制度中. 不过, 在战争时期, 这类法律有必要存在, 以对付外來的敌人, 但那也要根据个別情況處理. 这类法律不应采用來对付本国公民. 只有独裁国家的暴君, 或者一个专制的暴君, 才会把这类法律施加在自己的人民身上. 文明人是不会这么做的 …”



[取自 Loyarburok 网站: 2010.2.25专访 NH Chan (第2 部分)]





2. 大马人民应发挥其選票的威力





針对霹雳州所发生的事件和我国最高法院所作的判決, 退休法官NH Chan 说:如果大马人民对我国司法的恶劣情況感到恼怒,而认为我国现有法官不符合标准或要求, 他们应发挥其選票的威力,以改变我国现狀。



[取自 Loyarburok 网站: 2010.4.30专访 NH Chan]



Sunday, 9 May 2010

3rd Press Statement: Forum on "Consitutional Crisis in Malaysia" Panelists: Zaid, Nizar and Yeo


Forum on "Constitutional Crisis in Malaysia
- Why 2 Menteri Besars in Perak"


Panelists: Zaid, Nizar and Yeo


(The 3rd Media Statement dated 9th May 2010)

The forum on "Constitutional Crisis in Malaysia - Why 2 Menteri Besars in Perak" will be held as scheduled. Details of the forum are as follows:

Date: 15 May 2010 (Saturday)
Time: 8:30pm
Venue: Tropical Inn JB, Jalan Gereja, 80100 JB
Admission: Free

The event is jointly organized by Suaram JB and Semparuthi.

We are pleased to announce that Datuk Seri Nizar, Datuk Zaid and Mr Yeo Yang Poh will be the panelists in the forum. The forum will be conducted in Bahasa Melayu and English (according to the preference of panelists), while Mandarin summary will be provided.

The former Menteri Besar of Perak Datuk Seri Nizar was one of the most important figures in the constitutional crisis. He will share with us his personal experience in the crisis. He will talk on Krisis Perlembagaan Negeri Perak.

Datuk Zaid was a Minister in Prime Minister’s Department. He resigned from the Cabinet in protest against the use of the draconian ISA against dissidents. He is one of the well-respected leaders who denounced the UMNO's racist policy. His speech is entitled Quest for Justice.

Mr Yeo is a senior lawyer who has been active in the Malaysian Bar Council for many years. He is well respected for his unrelenting effort in promoting democracy and human rights. He will deliver a talk on Crisis or Prognosis.

The forum will be open to the public. A compilation of their speeches as well as articles from other sources will be made available at the Forum.

Attendants are advised to bring extra clothing to keep themselves warm as the hall is air-conditioned. We welcome all who are concerned with democracy in Malaysia.

Pls contact Ms Fang Pei Fen at 016-7782707 for further information.

“从霹雳大臣双胞案,谈大马宪政危机”论坛 尼查、再益、杨映波现身说法


大马宪政危机论坛15日新山举行

尼查、再益、杨映波现身说法


(2010年5月9日第三次文告)

由大红花之友与柔佛州人民之友工委会,两个团体联办的“从霹雳大臣双胞案,谈大马宪政危机”论坛,铁定在2010年5月15日(星期六)晚上8时30分开始,至11时30分之前结束。论坛地点是位于新山市区的统一大酒店(Tropical Inn)(地址: 15, Jalan Gereja, 80100 JB)四楼会议厅。论坛欢迎关心马来西亚民主人权的各界人士热烈出席。入场免费。

论坛将由霹雳州前州务大臣拿督斯理尼查、公正党最高理事拿督再益及律师公会前主席杨映波律师主讲并提供论文。3名主讲人将以马来语或英语(由主讲人本身决定),各抒己见。会上将有华语简述。

尼查是这次霹雳大臣双胞案的中心人物与重要角色。他将通过特别方式,对整个事件,发表其亲身感受和精彩演讲。其讲题是《霹雳州宪法危机》(Krisis Perlembagaan Negeri Perak)。

再益因反对政府滥用内安法令对付异议人士而辞去掌管司法事务的首相署部长官位。他是一名受人瞩目的反对巫统种族主义霸权的马来政治领袖。其讲题是《寻求公正》(Quest for Justice)。

杨映波是资深律师,曾领导马来西亚律师公会多年,致力宣扬民主人权意识,受到社会广泛尊重。其讲题是《是危机,还是预断?》(Crisis or Prognosis)。

3名主讲人将在演讲之后回答出席者针对论坛议题的有关提问。

此外,杨培根律师,也应工委会要求,就一名已退休的著名法官的文章论点,整理而成一篇题为《霹雳苏丹和州务大臣之间的争执焦点》(The tussle between the Sultan of Perak and Menteri Besar)的文章。工委会将把这篇文章与论坛主讲人提供的论文,合在一起,编印成册,现场分发,作为有心人士研究和讨论论坛主题的参考材料。

由于论坛会场冷气强劲,工委会提醒出席者自备御寒衣物。

欲知更多详情,请联络方佩芬小姐016-7782707。

Kenyataan Akhbar Kali Ke-3 9hb Mei 2010 “Kes MB Berkembar Perak: Kemelut Sistem Berperlembagaan Malaysia”


Forum Kemelut Sistem Berperlembagaan Malaysia ditetapkan
pada 15hb Mei di Johor Bahru


Datuk Seri Nizar, Dato Zaid Ibrahim, Yeo Yang Poh Berkongsi Pengalaman Diri

(Kenyataan Akhbar Kali Ke-3 9hb Mei 2010)

Forum “Kes MB Berkembar Perak: Kemelut Sistem Berperlembagaan Malaysia” anjuran bersama dua badan NGO, iaitu Persahabatan Semparuthi dan Friends of Suaram (FOS) Negeri Johor ditetapkan pada 15hb Mei 2010 (Sabtu). Forum akan bermula pada 8:30pm dan berakhir sebelum 11:30pm. Forum ini akan diadakan di Aras 4 Tropikal Inn (Alamat: 15, Jalan Gereja, 80100 JB), Johor Bahru. Forum ini terbuka kepada semua rakyat yang ambil berat tentang keadaan politik Negara kita. Tiada sebarang bayaran dikenakan.

Panel jemputan Forum termasuk bekas Menteri Besar negeri Perak Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin, Ahli Majlis Tertinggi Parti Keadilan Rakyat Dato’ Zaid Ibrahim dan bekas pengerusi Majlis Peguam Negara Encik Yeo Yang Poh. Panel-panel akan membentang dalam Bahasa Inggeris atau Bahasa Melayu (mengikut keperluan semasa dan ditentukan oleh Panelist) dan mengemukakan kertas perbincangan.

Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin merupakan key person dan watak penting dalam kes MB Berkembar Perak. Beliau akan berkongsi pengalamannya dan memberi ucapan menarik, dengan cara istimewa. Tajuk pembentangan beliau ialah “Krisis Perlembagaan Negeri Perak”.

Dato’ Zaid Ibrahim meletak jawatannya sebagai Menteri Jabatan Perdana Menteri yang menguruskan hal ehwal kehakiman demi membantah penyalahgunaan ISA oleh kerajaan keatas orang ramai yang berlainan pandangan dengan kerajaan. Beliau merupakan seorang pemimpin politik kaum Melayu yang dikenali dan diberi perhatian ramai kerana berani menentang hegemoni perkauman UMNO. Tajuk artikel beliau ialah “Mengejar Keadilan” (Quest for Justice).

Yeo Yang Poh merupakan seorang peguam yang berpengalaman. Beliau telah memimpin Majlis Peguam Negara untuk tempoh yang agak panjang. Beliau menerima penghormatan dari kalangan masyarakat kerana komitted dalam usaha menyebarkan fahaman demokrasi dan hak asasi manusia. Tajuk ucapan beliau ialah “Krisis atau Ramalan” (Crisis or Prognosis).

Ketiga-tiga orang panel bersedia menjawab soalan daripada hadirin/hadirat yang berkaitan dengan tajuk forum ini selepas pembentangan mereka.

Selain itu, di bawah permintaan Jawatankuasa, Peguam Yang Pei Keng telah mengemaskinikan isi-isi penting artikel seorang Hakim bersara yang terkenal,.kepada sebuah artikel yang bertajuk “Pergumulan antara Sultan Perak dan Menteri Besar” (The tussle between the Sultan of Perak and Menteri Besar). Jawatankuasa akan mengumpulkan artikel ini bersama dengan kertas-kertas para panelis ke dalam buku kecil dan mengedar kepada semua para hadirin, dan ia boleh dijadikan rujukan kepada sesiapa yang berminat membuat kajian terhadap tajuk forum ini.

Oleh sebab penghawa angin tempat forum agak kuat, Jawatankuasa mengingatkan para hadirin supaya membawa baju sejuk.

Sila hubungi Cik Fang Pei Fen (016-7782707) untuk sebarang pertanyaan lanjut.

Sunday, 2 May 2010

2nd Press Statement: Forum on "Consitutional Crisis in Malaysia - Why 2 Menteri Besars in Perak"

Forum on "Consitutional Crisis in Malaysia -
Why 2 Menteri Besars in Perak"

Panelists: Nizar, Zaid and Yeo


The 2nd Media Statement
28th April, 2010


The forum on "Constitutional Crisis in Malaysia - Why 2 Menteri Besars in Perak" will be held as scheduled. The details of the forum are as follows:

Date: 15 May 2010 (Saturday)
Time: 8:30pm
Venue: Tropical Inn, JB

Persahabatan Semparuthi as co-organiser
Persahabatan Semparuthi has agreed to co-organise the forum. Persahabatan Semparuthi is an NGO of the Indian community. It began as a group concerned with the plight of the Indian community in southern region of the State of Johor. It begun with a group of citizens help to popularize a magazine known as "Semparuthi" which focuses on the miserable life of the lower strata of the Indian community. Semparuthi means hibiscus in Tamil. It subsequently develops into a group striving for the rights and well-being of the Indian community as well as other communities.

Well-known figures as panelists
The three panelists of the forum are well-known figures none other than Nizar Jamaluddin, the Pakatan Menteri Besar of Perak; Zaid Ibrahim, PKR central committee member; and Yeo Yang Poh, former president of the Bar Council. The forum will be conducted in Bahasa Melayu, English, and Mandarin.

Datuk Seri Nizar was one of the key persons involved in the tussle between Pakatan and Barisan for the state power in Perak during the constitutional crisis. He will share with us, in a unique way, his personal experience in the crisis. In particular, he would express his views on the refusal of Perak's sultan to dissolve the state assembly and the Federal Court rulings in the matter.

Datuk Zaid resigned from the Barisan Cabinet when he was a Minister in Prime Minister’s Department, as a sign of protest against the use of the draconian ISA against dissidents. Subsequently he joined Parti Keadilan Rakyat and was the candidate in the Hulu Selangor by-election. Unfortunately, he lost in the by-election. He alleged that the by-election was one of the dirtiest and most corrupt by-elections ever. He is one of the highly respected Malay leaders who denounced the UMNO racist tyranny.

Mr Yeo is a senior legal practitioner. He has been active in the Malayan Bar Council for many years. He is well respected for advocating human rights and democracy. He will speak on the issue from a legal perspective.

We welcome all who are concerned with the democracy in Malaysia to attend the forum. The admission is free.

通告 Notification

《人民之友》发表对国内政局看法
马来文版已于9月23日刊出
英文版已于10月26日贴出


人民之友成立于2001年9月9日,2018年9月9日是人民之友成立17周年纪念的日子。我们在这一天发表了一篇题为< 联合起来,坚持真正的民主改革! 丢掉幻想,阻止马哈迪主义复辟!>的文章作为纪念。

我们一如既往选择在这一个对我们来说,具有里程碑意义的日子,对我国当前阶段(大选后新政府上台)的政治局势发表一些意见,与为推动我国和世界民主人权运动而奋斗的同道们,互相交流。

为了面向国内不谙华文的广大非华裔群体,也为了让我们对当前阶段的政治局势的意见能够更广泛地传播开去,工委会决定尽快把这篇纪念文章先后翻译成马来文和英文。马来文版已于9月23日刊出。英文版也已于10月26日贴出。点击以下链接即可阅读——



此外,现居新加坡的庄明湖已将他在《人民之友》发表的《20世纪60年代新加坡左派工运问题探索》(正篇)一文的英文译稿传送到编辑部,因原文中所述人物的姓名或者是党团工会组织的全称或简称,在译文中尚未解决或有待查证,需要一些时日来完成——人民之友工委都是自愿挤出时间来进行工作的,因而无法很快完成。经过一番努力,我们终于在9月30日刊出,为我们的17周年纪念增添光彩!

值得在此一提的是,庄文所述的20世纪60年代新加坡工运遭遇问题(除了遭受来自外部的镇压,还要遭遇来自内部的破坏)的见解,或许能为一些读者(特别是不谙华文和不懂新马历史的读者)思考马来西亚民主改革运动在当前阶段面临马哈迪主义复辟的问题,提供一个历史殷鉴,或者是一个新的启示。

Malaysia Time (GMT+8)