How to spot the usurper

comment All ordinary folk of Perak and elsewhere in this country know that V Sivakumar is the duy-elected speaker of the Perak legislative assembly. Yet S Ganesan pretends to be oblivious of the fact.

Before I go into the law on the status of Sivakumar so as to show that the imposter Ganesan has no legitimate claim whatsoever to the speaker’s chair, I think it is appropriate to recount Shakespeare’s 'Hamlet' for us to understand Ganesan’s character.

The play presents itself to an Elizabethan audience, like Dr Johnson and other 18th century critics apprehend, the political situation of the era. Dr Johnson calls Claudius “the Usurper”. Hamlet was the rightful heir to the throne who had been robbed of his inheritance by an uncle who had taken his place on the throne. The play ends with the untimely end of the Usurper Claudius and Hamlet’s mother who accidentally took poison.

Shakespeare’s foresight is uncanny in its resemblance to the political scene in Perak. The Usurper Ganesan fits into the character of Claudius who, for position and power, has forsaken the application of the Perak constitution in assuming the mantle of speaker by nefarious action.

Like Claudius, Ganesan (right in photo) is an unprincipled Usurper - his crass behaviour is that of a bully and ruffian - a rogue and a thug. Like Claudius, he has robbed the Sivakumar (left in photo) of his rightful place by force.

Sivakumar was appointed by the majority of the members of the legislative assembly shortly after the general election in March 2008; and it is there that he will remain as the legitimate speaker of the assembly until he resigns his office [Article 36A(2)] or is disqualified (under Clause 5) or the Assembly has resolved that he vacates his office as speaker [Article 36A(2)(d)].

That is the true position and status of the office of speaker as provided in Article 36A of the laws of the Perak constitution:

36A(2) The speaker may at any time resign his office and shall vacate his office:

(c) upon being disqualified under Clause (5); or
(d) if the assembly at any time so resolves.

(5) A member who is elected to be speaker shall be disqualified from holding such office if after three months of his election to such office or at any time thereafter he is or becomes a member of any board of directors or board of management, or an officer or employee, or engages in the affairs or business, of any organisation or body, whether corporate or otherwise, or of any commercial industrial or other undertaking, whether or not he receives any remuneration, reward, profit or benefit from it:

Provided that such disqualification shall not apply where such organisation or body carries out any welfare or voluntary work or objective beneficial to the community

(6) Where any question arises regarding the disqualification of the speaker under paragraph [sic] (5) the decision of the legislative assembly shall be taken and shall be final.

The effect of all these provisions is that Sivakumar cannot be deposed by any Usurper to the chair of the speaker.

In this case we have read that unlawful force had been used - Sivakumar was manhandled by the police as he was evicted from the chamber. For this dastardly and criminal act committed by those policemen and Ganesan - who has admitted that it was he who had summoned the police - and all those other persons who participated in the forceful eviction.

Sivakumar has a claim against every one of them for substantial damages which should include a claim for aggravated or exemplary damages for trespass to his person for assault and battery. Possibly even for false imprisonment - if I remember correctly, he was restrained by the police to enable Ganesan to supplant on the chair of speaker.

Furthermore, all the perpetrators are in contempt of the legislative assembly and could be dealt with by the Sivakumar.

So then, what is Ganesan talking about in his rant about Sivakumar using the letterhead of his office of speaker? Everything Ganesan reportedly says is untrue.

Imagine this. When intruders enter your home to commit robbery and you call the police. Instead of apprehending the robbers the police join hands with the robbers and rob you. After that the robbers lodge a report with the police that you stole from them. This is what is happening in Perak.

Ganesan has “lodged a police report with the Ipoh district police headquarters” and he has the cheek to accuse “Sivakumar of illegally using the speaker’s official letterhead twice”. ‘Why can’t the duly appointed speaker use his official letterhead? Surely he is entitled to do so. What right has Ganesan to say otherwise?

In Perak, it is only the legislative assembly that has the power to resolve that the speaker vacates his office: 36A(2d) The speaker may at any time resign his office and shall vacate his office - if the assembly at any time so resolves. (emphasis is mine)

There has been no such resolution by the legislative assembly.

Officials not above law

Another shocking news report was that Sivakimar was denied entry to the state secretariat to hold an inquiry.

All right thinking members of the public would like to know why CID chief Glenn Anthony is taking the side of the wrongdoer. Imagine returning home and seeing a wall of police personnel preventing you from entering the house.

The police chief says he has instructions from your servant not to allow you to enter your home when you are the boss. Sivakumar is the boss; not the state secretary and certainly not Ganesan.

TheSun, in a misleading report on July 31, took Ganesan’s side. It declared that the imposter is the speaker, thus: ‘The previous Perak Rights and Priveleges Committee headed by Tronoh assemblyman and former speaker V. Sivakumar can no longer hold a meeting as it is deemed dissolved after the May 7 sitting of the state assembly.’

The report quoted state secretary Abdullah Antong Sabri as saying the committee was valid for only one term and it ceased to function after the state assembly entered a new term. He also said Ganesan was appointed the new state assembly speaker and chairperson of the Rights and Privileges committee during the sitting.

Who appointed Ganesan? Don’t these people know that they cannot do as they please? They have to apply Article 36A(2)(d) as it stands. They cannot take the law into their own hands. Every one in this country is under the law.

The report went on to say: ‘Shamshuzaman conveyed a directive from state secretary Abdul Rabman Hashim that the committee was barred from holding its meeting at the complex as it was no longer valid and relevant.’

Does not the state secretary realise that he is only a civil servant and he is not the law? He is not above the law and he should not serve Ganesan. He cannot take the side of the wrongdoer.

It looks as if all these people who sided with Ganesan are all in cahoots, otherwise, how do you explain how they seemed to have acted in unison? The state secretary should know his place which is to be in charge of the administrative management of the state - in short he is only a manager of the state government; a civil servant.

He cannot speak on behalf of the speaker. He has no authority to issue instructions to the police to obstruct the speaker:

36C(1) There shall be constituted the offices of state secretary, state legal adviser and state financial officer and appointments thereto shall be made by the appropriate Service Commission from amongst members of any of the relevant public services.

(2)(a) The state secretary [...] shall be the principle officer responsible for the administrative management of the state.

(3) Every such official shall have the right to take part in the proceedings of the state executive council and the legislative assembly and may be appointed to any committee thereof but shall not have any vote [...].

So, how dare he issues a directive that the Rights and Privileges Committee is barred from holding its meeting at the complex as it was no longer valid and relevant? Who is he to say that the committee is no longer valid and relevant?

He does not even know the state constitution, otherwise he would not be saying anything so stupid. In the eyes of the people of Perak, this nasty individual is just a minion of the people’s elected representatives.

All in cahoots

This final piece of news from Star on Aug 3 shows that they are all in cahoots. The illegitimate menteri besar of Perak enters the fray of inequity, in a report entitled: ‘Zambry: Don’t allow anarchy to rule’ in response to the anti-ISA rally in Kuala Lumpur last Saturday.

Is he serious? He forgets that he is one of those who caused the Perak debacle. He is one of the people responsible for sowing the seeds of discontent in Perak.

Remember what the late Lord Denning said in ‘The Family Story’, p 179:
No matter who it is - who is guilty of the abuse or misuse. Be it government, national or local. . . . Whoever it be, no matter how powerful, the law should provide a remedy for the abuse or misuse of power. Else the oppressed will get to the point when they will stand it no longer. They will find their own remedy. There will be anarchy.

If you have been reading my articles on the Perak debacle you will see the abuse and misuse of power being perpetrated by those in power. And the higher judiciary are also guilty or such abuse or misuse by not administering the law as it stands - they have even refused to apply the plain language of the constitution, federal or state, by giving their own meaning to unambiguous words just like Humpty Dumpty did.

The only way to prevent anarchy from getting a hold in this country is to return to the days of our former glory. Denning puts it admirably, p 179:

To my mind it is fundamental in our society that a judge should do his utmost to see that powers are not abused or misused. If they come into conflict with the freedom of the individual - or with any other of our fundamental freedoms - then it is the province of the judge to hold the balance between the competing interests. In holding that balance the judges must put freedom first.

And our judiciary should also take not of the wise words of Denning, still on p 179:

But if and when wrongs are thereby suffered by any of us, what is the remedy? The courts must do this. Of all the great tasks that lie ahead, this is the greatest. Properly exercised the new powers of the executive lead to the Welfare State: but abused they lead to the totalitarian State. None such must ever be allowed in this country. . . . Let us prove ourselves equal to the challenge.

NH CHAN is a former Court of Appeal judge famous for his ‘All is not well in the House of Denmark' comment regarding judicial corruption. He was referring to the Kuala Lumpur High Court's commercial division located in Wisma Denmark. The quote is based on Shakespeare's 'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark'. He now lives in Ipoh.

This is an edited version of thes article.