We went to Bar Council yesterday to join others n participate with the program above. Moderator, our Bar Council President, Mr Ragu chaired the forum and the panelist were Dr. Siva (ALIRAN), Datuk Shafie (lawyer), Tommy Thomas (Constitutional Lawyer).
It is a good and persuasive arguments which had been made by three of the panelist. Dr. Siva who do not have legal background had said on behalf of people and speak for civil society. As a lay man, he proposed anti hopping law should be implemented in Malaysia due to most of Malaysian who voted in the last general election on March 2008 and by election in Permatang Pauh, Kuala Terengganu, Bukit Gantang, Batang Air had been seen voted for the parties rather than the person himself/herself.
He also argued what had been stated by Datuk Shafie regarding undated signed letter whether legally binding or not. But, he said common sense supposed the representatives should aware and know what he doing when signed the letter.
Datuk Shafie comments on chronological case of Perak and he had put forward a few evidence regarding the crisis. With wide experience in criminal + constitutional matter, he had show a persuasive evidence at first. But a few points made by him also was 'lacuna'.
Tommy who defended Sivakumar, Speaker of Lower House in Perak had stated about his client and made comparative in England, India and Malaysia regarding constitutional monarchy approach which been made by Sultan Azlan. Using the same approach like other constitutional scholars did, he put forward why proceeding in the lower house should not be questioned in other branches of government (judiciary). The same thing had happened before in England for the past 700 years due to interpretation made by Judiciary or executive.
Irrational and hurry trial, judgement and proceeding in Court for this case had made a great remarks and showed that the judiciary had been influenced by other parties. This because the case had not been heard at lower court such as High Court and Appeal Court but 1st trial had been heard at Federal Court.
As a conclusion its really sad to see a good forum only been participate and dominated from other races (non bumi). How about Malay lawyer and people... Suppose this good forum attended by law students, scholar and of course politician to be discussed academically not emotionally. (R. Sivarasa came to this forum).
It is a good and persuasive arguments which had been made by three of the panelist. Dr. Siva who do not have legal background had said on behalf of people and speak for civil society. As a lay man, he proposed anti hopping law should be implemented in Malaysia due to most of Malaysian who voted in the last general election on March 2008 and by election in Permatang Pauh, Kuala Terengganu, Bukit Gantang, Batang Air had been seen voted for the parties rather than the person himself/herself.
He also argued what had been stated by Datuk Shafie regarding undated signed letter whether legally binding or not. But, he said common sense supposed the representatives should aware and know what he doing when signed the letter.
Datuk Shafie comments on chronological case of Perak and he had put forward a few evidence regarding the crisis. With wide experience in criminal + constitutional matter, he had show a persuasive evidence at first. But a few points made by him also was 'lacuna'.
Tommy who defended Sivakumar, Speaker of Lower House in Perak had stated about his client and made comparative in England, India and Malaysia regarding constitutional monarchy approach which been made by Sultan Azlan. Using the same approach like other constitutional scholars did, he put forward why proceeding in the lower house should not be questioned in other branches of government (judiciary). The same thing had happened before in England for the past 700 years due to interpretation made by Judiciary or executive.
Irrational and hurry trial, judgement and proceeding in Court for this case had made a great remarks and showed that the judiciary had been influenced by other parties. This because the case had not been heard at lower court such as High Court and Appeal Court but 1st trial had been heard at Federal Court.
As a conclusion its really sad to see a good forum only been participate and dominated from other races (non bumi). How about Malay lawyer and people... Suppose this good forum attended by law students, scholar and of course politician to be discussed academically not emotionally. (R. Sivarasa came to this forum).
No comments:
Post a Comment