Perkahwinan Adik Ku

Tahniah buat adikku...

Beliau menamatkan zaman bujang nya pada hari Jumaat yang lalu dan majlis persandingan sebelah perempuan di buat pada hari Sabtu dan belah keluarga kami pada hari Ahad.

Isteri beliau, Fiza seorang guru bahasa Inggeris. Kami sekeluarga mendoakan beliau semoga bahagia hingga akhir hayat, dan dipercepatkan mendapat baby. hehehe

Selamat Hari Bapa

Kamilan Bin Seman berumur 56 tahun, seorang pesara tentera dan jawatan terakhir Pegawai Waran II, T211373.

Ayah penulis orang yang tegas tetapi sejak semalam penulis ingin mengucapkan Selamat Hari Bapa baru pagi tadi sempat menelefon beliau kerana sejak semalam penulis hanya dapat bercakap dengan emak dan adik sahaja.

Penulis dapat rasakan begitu besar pengorbanan beliau sebagai ayah kepada penulis. Rasa risau beliau ketika penulis sakit dan meyakinkan ibu penulis bahawa penulis perlu mendapatkan special treatment dari Specialist di Hospital Pakar Puteri.

Pengorbanan beliau terhadap pembelajaran penulis dari Sekolah Menengah, Universiti. Kesusahan beliau menghantar 'interview' dan sebagainya.

Pagi-pagi dinihari telah kedengaran suara beliau pulang dari masjid membaca al quran.

Di siang hari, solat dhuha tidak pernah putus. Dugaan padanya banyak, tetapi ayah sentiasa tenang menghadapinya. Mungkin ini rahsia ketenangan ayah.

Ah... diwaktu usia emas beliau kini sepatutnya beliau sudah selayaknya berehat tetapi beliau masih lagi mengajar di sekolah... Kalau diberikan rezeki dan peluang lebih, penulis mahu sahaja bawa ayah dan emak penulis melancong. Moga ALLAH terus berikan kekuatan kepada beliau untuk terus sihat dan walafiat dalam menjalankan ibadah kepada ALLAH.

Ya ALLAH, ampunkan lah dosa kedua ibu bapa ku... Ku tahu emas dan permata tidak mampu membalas jasa mereka membesarkan ku jadikan lah aku anak yang soleh dan taat pada mereka berdua, menyenangkan dan dapat membahagiakan mereka ketika di usia mereka ini. Aku tidak mahu apa-apa kecuali kau kurniakan mereka kesihatan dan hindarkan mereka daari kesakitan yang tidak mampu mereka tanggung.

Hanya Engkau sahaja yang mampu membalas pahala mereka. AMEEN

Dewan Negara: Sebagai 'rubber stamp' atau badan pemeriksa?

Dalam sistem pemerintahan demokrasi yang diwarisi dari Inggeris, kita hampir mempunyai ciri-ciri yang mirip keinggerisan berbanding negara imperialis lain yang pernah menjajah Malaysia.
Di Parlimen Malaysia, kita mempunyai dua dewan yang terdiri daripada Dewan negara dan Dewan Rakyat. Kebanyakan negara meletakkan dewan negara (senate) sebagai tepat pertama dan dewan rakyat (House of Representatives) tempat kedua.

Walau pun begitu, Malaysia sangat unik kerana Dewan Rakyat kelihatan sangat berkuasa dan bermakna kerana Perdana Menteri perlu dilantik dan mendapat sokongan ahli-ahli dewan rakyat berbanding dewan negara. Ahli-ahli dewan negara terdiri daripada dua bahagian iaitu pilihan negeri-negeri di dalam Malaysia. kedua, lantikan Yang Di Pertuan Agong. Kebiasaannya, calon-calon akan mendapat sokongan di dalam Dewan undangan Negeri (DUN) secara convention dan nama yang dicadangkan akan dihantar ke Speaker Dewan Negara.

Manakala calon-calon yang mendapat lantikan Yang Di Pertuan Agong kebiasaannya dicadangkan kerajaan yang memerintah di peringkat Persekutuan seperti dari parti politik pemerintah Shahrizat Jalil, Jamil Khir Baharom dan sebagainya. Kedua, dari NGO atau badan bukan kerajaan yang berpengaruh seperti Jins Shamsudin (Seniman) dan sebagainya.

Ketika ini kita mempunyai 70 kerusi di Dewan Negara di mana 13 buah negeri mempunyai kuasa memilih dua senator wakil setiap negeri. Putrajaya, Kuala Lumpur dan Labuan dilantik oleh YDPA seramai dua orang setiap wilayah persekutuan. Manakala selebihnya terdiri daripada lantikan YDPA atas nasihat PM.

Perhatikan secara analisis ketika ini, kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat menguasai empat buah negeri Selangor, Kelantan, Pulau Pinang dan Kedah. PR mempunyai 10 ahli Dewan Negara. Tetapi bagi Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur masih lagi dipilih oleh Kerajaan BN, dan lain-lain lagi. Berkemungkinan besar apabila ahli-ahli Dewan Rakyat yang majoriti nya parti pemerintah maka kebiasaannya rang undang-undang akan diterima dengan sedikit perbahasan.

Mengapa tidak kita memilih ahli Dewan Negara secara terus dari rakyat sepertimana Thailand, Australia, Amerika dan sebagainya. Tujuan diwujudkan dua dewan adalah sebagai penimbang terhadapt keputusan yiang dibuat di dewan rakyat. Sekiranya kita masih berterusan begini maka idea dewan negara sebagai rubber stamp sampai bila-bila tidak akan dapat di ubah.

Pemilihan wakil atau ahli dewan negara juga sentiasa di ragui. Contohnya, kebanyakan majoriti ahli dewan negara mempunyai hubungan yang sangat rapat dengan parti pemerintah. Tidak kira ia memang sebenarnya dari parti pemerintah atau individu dalam NGO tersebut. Oleh itu, matlamat diwujudkan dua dewan ini tidak pernah tercapai jika niatnya tidak difahami msyarakatnya. Tetapi kita juga tidak menafikan wakil senator yang memang betul-betul bekerja.

Apabila ahli dewan negara di adakan secara pilihan raya, apa yang lebih penting penonjolan sikap individu tersebut atau sumbangan kepada masyarakat menjadi prioriti dalam memilih calonh tersebut. Contohnya di kalangan pensyarah/ ahli akademik, golongan profesional, aktivis masyarakat dan sebagainya.

Oleh itu, apakah ini dapat diimplementasikan jika sebelah pihak yang memerintah? tepuk dada tunggu dan lihat.

Konsep Kebertanggungjawaban MPP kepada Mahasiswa

Konsep ini bukan sesuatu yang baru kepada MPP dan badan eksekutif mahasiswa (persatuan fakulti, kelab atau kolej kediaman). Ia membawa maksud sikap ketelusan sesuatu badan terhadap wang yang diamanahkan untuk dibelanjakan kepada mahasiswa.

Kita lihat analisis ini, sebuah kolej kediaman mewajibkan kepada setiap mahasiswa membayar RM25 kepada kolej bagi setiap satu semester. Pelajar yang tinggal di dalam kolej kediaman itu terdiri daripada mahasiswa mahasiswi seramai 1200 orang. 1200 x RM25 = RM30,000. Justeru, di dalam setiap penggal berakhir dengan perlantikan jawatankuasa kolej yang baru maka penyata kewangan perlu dilaporkan dan dibenarkan di akses setiap mahasiswa. Dengan cara itu, mahasiswa tahu ke mana dan di mana wang tersebut dibelanjakan. Ini kerana nilai duit yang dibayar kadang kala tidak setimpal dengan program kolej yang tidak menajamkan minda dan membangunkan intelektual mahasiswa.

Oleh itu, sebelum kita meminta wakil rakyat bersikap telus dan jujur kepada rakyat. Kampus / Universiti juga wajar bersikap telus dengan mendedahkan kepada pemimpin mahasiswa jumlah wang yang diterima dari Kementerian Pengajian tinggi bagi membangunkan mahasiswa. Penulis pernah dimaklumkan setiap Universiti menerima RM50 setahun daripada kementerian bagi program pembangunan mahasiswa. Ini bermaksud kalau ada sebuah IPT mempunyai jumlah 20, 000 pelajar maka ia akan mempunyai RM 1, 000, 000 bagi pembangunan mahasiswa. Tetapi ia tidak menjadi sedemikian dan ini menimbulkan pelbagai syak wasangka dengan kenyataan berbaur fitnah, wang di salah guna dan sebagainya.


Justeru, bagi mendidik masyarakat bersikap adil, telus dan bertanggungjawab apa masalahnya kalau dimaklumkan sahaja kemana wang tersebut disalurkan jika mereka benar2 berani dan bersih. Penghantaran kakitangan untuk ke Australia contohnya bagi menimba pengalaman pengurusan pelajar antarabangsa akhirnya tiada maklumat dan laporan pengimplementasian program seperti itu pun di IPTA tersebut.

Penulis harus juga memuji sikap beberapa Persatuan Mahasiswa (MPP) di Malaysia yang berani melaksanakan Mesyuarat Agung bagi dicerca dan dipersoalkan terhadap tugas dan tanggungjawab mereka.... Sebagai pemimpin mahasiswa yang baik mereka bukan sahaja harus bersedia menerima pujian melambung ke langit tetapi juga cercaan menghina yang menghempas mereka ke bumi.

Fikir-fikirkan...

Menjadi Mahasiswa Lagi...

Rugi....Rugi.... Dah fikirkan masak-masak ker? Jadi ke berhenti....

Antara ungkapan, santunan, perbualan popular yang sudah semakin kerap penulis dengar sejak sebualan yang lalu.

Dalam keadaan ekonomi yang tidak berapa baik, jumlah graduan yang menganggur hampir mencecah puluhan ribu orang. Di tengah-tengah kesesakan 'graduan muda' mencari kerja. Penulis BERHENTI KERJA

Ada perkara yag perlu difahami dan dibezakan.

Pertama, tak semua manusia mempunyai kekuatan yang sama. kelemahan penulis tidak mampu membuat dua kerja dalam satu masa. Maksudnya, penulis hanya boleh memilih untuk belajar atau penulis memilih untuk bekerja bagi memastikan penulis sentiasa memberi komitmen yang terbaik.

Kedua, matlamat penulis untuk belajar hingga ke peringkat tertinggi. Mungkin hingga PhD. Justeru, manusia perlu membezakan dan tidak meletakkan wang ringgit sebagai suatu kepuasan dalam hidup. Duit bukan as' sebab untuk kita berada di dunia ini. Jika tiada duit tidak bermaksud kita tiada segala-galanya. Maksudnya, matlamat penulis menuntut ilmu, duit pada penulis cukup untuk makan, pakaian, kegunaan harian dan sebagaiya. Tetapi ia bukan kepuasan dan duit boleh di cari.

Setiap kali kita meletakkan matlamat kita duit maka akhirnya mata dan pemikiran manusia telah terikat untuk membuat sesuatu yang lebih dari uapaya mereka. Contohnya kalau pada masa itu, zaman itu seseorang telah berfikir tiap-tiap bulan duit perlu dibahagi-bahagikan untuk beberapa perkara dan jika tiada duit tidak dapat membeli itu dan ini. Akhirnya seseorang yang sepatutnya berkebolehan untuk belajar lagi atau berada di tempat lain akan terus terikat dengan kerjanya kerana ia telah melimitasikan tindakannya berasaskan keperluan yang telah diletakkan terlebih dahulu.

Oleh itu, buatlah sebebas-bebasnya perkara yang anda ingin buat tanpa perlu diikat dengan tindakan dan kerja yang membebankan.

UKM, i'm coming....

MPP Perlu bersifat merakyat sebagai eksekutif bukan eksklusif

Kesilapan yang MPP sering lakukan (seperti penulis juga dahulu) adalah tidak merakyat sebagai eksekutif. Kedudukan MPP sepertiman dibicarakan oleh rakan-rakan di dalam ABIM dan PKPIM perlu di dasari bahawa ia bukan tashrif (singgahsana kemegahan) bahkan ia adalah taklif' (beban amanah dan tanggungjawab). MPP perlu memahami kehadiran mereka ke dalam sesuatu majlis rasmi universiti, kolej2 kediaman atau formal bukan untuk dirai bahkan ia perlu meraikan mahasiswa.

Contohnya mudah, Kolej A membuat majlis makan malam di sebuah hotel. MPP B di jemput menghadiri atas kapasitinya sebagai warga kolej dan jawatannya. Oleh itu, peranan MPP B adalah hadir meraikan rakan-rakan pimpinan membuat majlis dan meraikan mahasiswa lain. Ini dapat dilihat dengan ramah nya MPP B pergi ke meja-meja rakan-rakan mereka bertanya khabar dan menyapa mereka. Jangan eksklusif duduk di meja vip atau di meja yang disediakan hingga kita lupa kita dipilih oleh mahasiswa.

Tetapi hakikatnya yang penting bukan hipokrit dan jadikan ia satu amalan dalam diri.

Sebab itu kita perlu memahami MPP perlu menjadi badan eksekutif mahasiswa yang mengangkat dan membantu mahasiswa menjalankan aktiviti, dan membangunkan kerangka diri mahasiswa. Hubungan MPP dan mahasiswa yag akrab dan disenangi akan menjadi indicator kejayaan MPP dalam membantu usaha ini.

Walau pun begitu, penulis tidak menafikan ada segelintir pimpinan mahasiswa bertindak eksklusif dengan terus-terusan berada di dalam bilik MPP yang berair con, tidak bercampur gaul dengan pemimpin mahasiswa di kolej-kolej kediaman, atau persatuan dan kelab. Kumpulan kecil ini tidak boleh dikesampingkan kerana mereka adalah asas dalam nadi MPP.

Pengalaman penulis dua portfolio penting ini harus dijaga Timb YDP MPP- Presiden2 Kolej Kediaman manakala NYDP menjaga Presiden2 Persatuan. Dan akhirnya kita ada kekuatan bersama-sama dalam menjayakan sesutau program di universiti.

MPP harus beringat tunduk dan hormat kepada kolej2 dan persatuan bukan bermaksud kita takut dengan kehendak mereka malahan mereka ertambah hormat dengan kita. Betullah kata-kata orang tua ikut resmi padi semakin menunduk semakin kita merendah diri. Kegagalan ini lah yang gagal dihadami MPP hatta pemimpin politik kita.

Cuba perhatikan pemimpin-pemimpin politik. Berapa ramai sanggup berpakaian biasa seperti marhaen atau rakyat biasa. Baju cap 'Pak Mat' berbanding brand luar negara yang diagung-agung kan. Rambut diwarna-warnakan, isteri pemimpin memakai pakaian beribu-ribu ringgit ditengah-tengah kelompok rakyat yang hanya kelas pertengahan yang gaji mereka 6 bulan pun tak mampu berpakaian sedemikian rupa.

Sepertimana kata-kata Puan Ainon, bahasa badan dan aspek luaran saja telah tidak membuktikan keikhlasan mereka 'meraikan' bersama-sama rakyat. Politik kampus adalah cerminan untuk kita belajar menjadi pemimpin di luar sana. Tingkah laku kita hari ini akan menunjukkan pemimpin bagaimana 20 atau 30 tahun akan datang jika kita menjadi pemimpin.

Oleh itu, jadilah kita eksekutif mahasiswa berbanding bersikap isolasi dan eksklusif dari mahasiswa.

What is the real meaning of Sub Judice?

Censoring with sub judice

Tuesday, 14 April 2009 03:11am

©The Nut Graph (Used by permission) By Zedeck Siew WHEN the police banned any mention of Altantuya Shaariibuu or the Barisan Nasional takeover of Perak from by-election ceramah recently, sub judice was used to justify the order. "Both cases are still in court. As such, talking about them or bringing them up in crowds can be sub judice or contempt of court," declared then Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar. Indeed, sub judice is often cited when the Malaysian authorities issue a gag order even when a subject matter is of public interest. What is sub judice and are the authorities justified in wielding it to censor public discussion? Preventing prejudgment Sub judice is a Latin term. It is legalese that literally means "under judicial consideration". "The sub judice rule governs what public statements can be made about any ongoing legal proceedings," Malaysian Bar Council secretary George Varughese explains in an e-mail interview. Underscoring the rule, he says, is the concept of prejudging. "If discussion might place improper pressure on the litigants or on witnesses, then the courts can intervene and hold such discussions as sub judice, and thus in contempt of court," he says. However, the Malaysian government's interpretation is that once the hearing of a case begins in court, sub judice puts a halt to any public or media discussion of it. Varughese says this is a misconception. "The sub judice rule does not prohibit fair and accurate reporting of the factual contents of any ongoing proceedings," he says. This means that if certain facts or evidence have already been presented in court, discussion of such facts is fair and legal. "If it is a matter of public interest, it can be discussed at large, without the fear of being in contempt of court," Varughese adds. "Criticisms can be made and repeated. Fair comment does not prejudice a fair trial." Jury trials Bar Council president Ragunath Kesavan describes the current concept of sub judice in the Malaysian context as "subverting a judicial process". He explains that it is "a creature of the past", a leftover from an era when the outcome of Malaysian court cases was decided by a jury. "It was relevant in jury trials. You don't want a jury to be swayed by external pressure or undue influence," Ragunath says. He uses a hypothetical snatch-theft case as an example. Noting that there is huge public outrage against snatch thieves, it would be conceivable that a sizeable group of people start promoting the death penalty for such offenders, he says. "If we had jury trials and there was open discussion of [such a] case, that could jeopardise the conduct of a fair trial and that could be sub judice," Ragunath explains. Such public pressure could influence the impartiality of jurors, who comprise the Malaysian public. But Ragunath points out, this has become irrelevant in Malaysia today because the jury system was completely abolished in Malaysian courts by 1995. Judgments are now made by judges, who are experts. "Judges are trained in the law. They have been sitting on the bench for years," Ragunath says. "It would be unlikely for them to be swayed by public discussion." Former Bar Council president Yeo Yang Poh concurs. "Unlike judges who, by their training, are supposed to be able to decide cases without being unduly influenced by public opinion, jurors are not similarly equipped to rise above public opinion." "Thus, the sub judice rule has no place in present day Malaysia, where there is no longer any jury trial," Yeo says. Justifying censorship Criminal and information technology lawyer Richard Wee believes that, to a certain extent, there is a legitimate point to Syed Hamid's statement and the police's actions. "Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities. We cannot openly declare that he killed her, with 100% certainty," Wee says, referring to new prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's connection to the Altantuya murder case. However, Wee maintains that the facts of the case — including Sirul Azhar Umar's testimony, and the fact that both police officers who have been found guilty of the Mongolian model's murder served on Najib's security detail — should be allowed. "The police and Syed Hamid are taking things to an illogical level," Wee opines. "They are using sub judice as censorship." He also points out that this ban seems lopsided, as it does not extend to discussion of other court cases. "If it is sub judice, what about [Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim]'s sodomy case? Utusan Malaysia discusses the case as if Anwar's guilt were a matter of fact." Balancing act Ragunath says an important question is how to balance the principle of sub judice with Malaysian's right to freedom of expression. "In the democracy we are today, there should be some level of openness." He points out that legal remedies are already available to a citizen facing false public allegations: civil and criminal defamation. Having the right to public discussion should also not usurp the role of the courts, says Varughese; "for example, by discussing how the issues should be decided by the courts." Ragunath concurs: "What ought not to happen is statements such as 'the judge should do this, or the judge should do that'." However, he maintains that everyone should be held responsible for his or her decision. "We have moved on. Therefore, sub judice should not be used to dampen public debate. Even judges should be accountable to the people for the decisions they make." Of course, the impartiality of Malaysian judges has been a popular question since the 1988 judicial crisis. More recently, one need only look to the VK Lingam videotape controversy. Regardless, a judge invoking the principle of sub judice would be highly unacceptable, as it means he or she is liable to be swayed by public, inexpert opinion. As the Malaysian legal system is based on the UK's common law principles, Yeo cites the landmark Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Limited case as proof of this notion. "The House of Lords judgment in fact states that a judge who would succumb to public opinion, when the facts of — and the law applicable to — a particular case are before him [or her], would be unfit for [the] job."

Fair treatment to all litigants

Perak Constitutional crisis: Wake up and smell the carcass! – Amer Hamzah Arshad

Thursday, 04 June 2009 06:38am

©The Malaysian Insider (Used by permission) JUNE 3 – As a Perakian, I will always remember 11.5.2009 as the day when justice and truth alighted briefly for a moment in a Kuala Lumpur High Court. It was the day when, against all expectations, the Kuala Lumpur High Court allowed Nizar’s application for several declaratory orders, amongst others, an order declaring him as the rightful Menteri Besar of Perak. The Judge delivered a reasoned and legally sound written judgment. It has been reportedly and analysed widely already so there is no need for me to do the same. What I would like to reflect upon here is the aftermath of that decision. On 12.5.2009, Zambry appealed the High Court decision to the Court of Appeal. He also filed an application for an interim stay the High Court order pending the disposal of his appeal before the Court of Appeal. The purpose and intention of that interim stay application was to prevent Nizar from resuming his duty as the Menteri Besar notwithstanding the decision of the Kuala Lumpur High Court. Zambry’s ex-parte stay application, without any surprise, was allowed by the Court of Appeal, by a single judge. Before discussing the Court of Appeal stay order, I think it necessary to comment on the speed in which Zambry’s stay application was heard and thereafter granted. Zambry filed his application for stay of the Kuala Lumpur High Court decision on 12.5.2009. Amazingly, his application was scheduled to be heard at 11.30am on the same day, i.e., approximately two hours after the stay application was filed. In both my experience and that of many of my learned friends, an application is just not heard that quickly ordinarily or even exceptionally, with a certificate of urgency. None of us have ever heard an application being sealed, issued and fixed for hearing before a judge (be it at any level - Magistrates all the way up to the Federal Court), heard and the application allowed in less than two and a half hours. If the courts were ordinarily that efficient, I would have no cause for complaint. But it just doesn’t happen that way usually. This glaring efficiency would not have been so bad if it applied to the opposing party as well. However, when Nizar filed his application to set aside the ex-parte stay order he did not get the same efficient service. His application was filed on 13.5.2009, a day after the stay order was granted. Since Zambry’s application was heard and disposed off with such efficiency, one would naturally think that Nizar’s would receive the same treatment. After all, it is a fundamental rule of law that you treat like parties equally. Both of them are litigants and so both should be treated fairly and so equally. But Nizar’s application was fixed four days after on 18.5.2009. To add insult to injury, on 15.5.2009, Nizar’s solicitors were informed that the Court of Appeal pushed the hearing date later to 21.5.2009, which was the same day as the substantive appeal itself. This naturally resulted in Nizar’s application being “academic” or to call a spade a spade, useless. The present Chief Justice is fond of saying, justice delayed is justice denied. Well, this was precisely such an instance. The difference in treatment between Zambry’s and Nizar’s applications are like heaven and hell. The delay on part of the Court of Appeal to hear Nizar’s setting aside application, deliberate or otherwise, also provokes one to wonder whether there were hidden hands hell-bent on preventing Nizar from continuing to perform his duty as a Menteri Besar despite the High Court decision which was made a day earlier? Another curious issue is exceptional instance of the granting of the stay order by a single Court of Appeal Judge, Ramly Ali JCA, who was elevated barely a month prior to his order. Furthermore, his Lordship’s decision has been widely criticized in the legal fraternity as being surreal if not downright perverse for this simple reason: it is an established principle of law that declaratory orders cannot be stayed. The nature of the orders made by the High Court in the present case is declaratory in nature. It must be understood that “declaratory orders” are different from orders which are “executory” in nature. “Declaratory orders”, as the name suggests, merely declare: (i) the true interpretation of the law or document; and (ii) the legal position or rights between the parties. The effect of that is that declaratory orders does not create or confer rights. Such an order merely pronounces on the actual legal position and/or factual scenario in question. For example, you may seek a declaration that there was X is your son. If you are successful in your application, then the court will declare that X is your son. How do you stay an order like that? For argument’s sake, let’s say we do. Does that mean X is not your son if the opposing party obtains a stay of the order and throughout the duration of the order? No. And that is why courts do not grant a stay order on a declaratory order. It’s a nonsensical thing to do. Furthermore, another distinctive feature of a declaratory order is that once they are pronounced by the Court, the legal rights or legal positions vis-a-vis the parties are settled. No further legal steps or proceedings need to follow. “Executory orders”, on the other hand, declare the right of the parties and then proceed to order the defendant to act in a particular way, e.g. to pay damages or money owed and such orders can be enforced by execution proceedings if disobeyed. In the present case, the orders made clearly did not create or confer any rights upon Nizar to be the Menteri Besar as Nizar has always been the Menteri Besar. Instead, the order merely indicates the position as it has always been, i.e., that Nizar is Menteri Besar of Perak at all material times. The High Court order did not confer something which was did not exist in the first place. In view of the unique nature of declaratory orders as described above, where an appeal is lodged against a declaratory order, there can be no stay of proceedings, legally or sensibly. Now, even assuming for the briefest moment you can imagine, that the Court of Appeal Judge was correct in granting the stay order, the next question the Judge should ask himself is whether the stay order would achieve any legal and tangible purpose or is it an exercise in futility? Does the stay order confer power upon Zambry for him to perpetuate his misguided notion that he is the Menteri Besar of Perak? Can the Court of Appeal grant a stay over a constitutional matter? The short answer is no, especially in relation to constitutional disputes. The granting of a stay order over a constitutional matter is an exercise in futility. Even Fiji, a country which is far less developed than Malaysia, applied the principle correctly as can be seen in the case of Registration Officer for the Suva City Fijian Urban Constituency v. James Michael Ah Koy (unreported) Fiji Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1992, where the Fiji Court of Appeal held;- “Whilst the pending appeal undoubtedly involves a question of great public importance of a constitutional nature, the fact is that unless and until the Supreme Court overturns the Court of Appeal decision, that decision must stand and it binds the parties to the proceedings.” and further on : “Orderly functioning of democracy depends on the relevant authorities taking cognisance of and giving effect to Court Orders be they executive or declaratory in nature. Unless a case is made out to the contrary (and the onus is on the Applicant to show that exceptional grounds exist) the successful party must be allowed to enjoy the fruits of his success.” In the present case, since the High Court had declared that Nizar is the rightful Menteri Besar of Perak, there is no procedure that empowers the court to stay or invalidate that declaration pending the hearing of an appeal. Therefore, I would argue that the single Judge of the Court of Appeal erred in law in granting the stay order. Additionally, in granting the stay order, the judge had conferred upon Zambry the false impression that the latter is the Menteri Besar, when in law the High Court had already declared to him to be otherwise. It is akin to granting Zambry with the “emperor’s invisible new clothes” which has caused him to act under the misguided belief that he has the authority of the Menteri Besar, when in actual fact, he is parading himself in Perak “stark naked”. However, whatever I have written above is not a live issue anymore since the Court of Appeal had ruled in favour of Zambry. Some quarters claim that the Court of Appeal decision was good because it took and was guided by “national interest” considerations. What is clear to me that such claims tend to leave out the word “Barisan” before that phrase. And if one were to analyse the aftermath of the Kuala Lumpur High Court decision, one cannot stop from smelling a foul stench of the carcass of the Perak Constitution. I sincerely hope that the rakyat will wake up!!! – loyarburok