It could've been a tennis court
James DevadasonPublished: Mar 9, 2009 7:36 AM | Updated: Mar 9, 2009 8:09 AM
I refer to the Malaysiakini report Cops to probe Perak reps over illegal gathering.
This has raised a novel issue of whether the 28 representatives of Pakatan Rakyat, in holding an emergency sitting of the state assembly under an angsana tree, constituted an illegal assembly.
The issue here is whether the assembly is illegal. I am of the view that it is not illegal as the speaker can convene the assembly. What the speaker has done is to continue with the fourth sitting of the first session of the 12th legislative assembly of Perak.
The meeting of the assembly was adjourned and not prorogued nor was it dissolved. Noted historian George Santyana said, ‘History repeats itself but no one pays attention’.
In regard to this episode of convening the state assembly under a tree, there is an historical antecedent.
In 1789, King Louis XVI of France summoned the Estates-General which comprised of the First Estate (representing the clergy), the Second Estate (the nobility) and the Third Estate (the commoners).
In the Estates-General, the debates were strident and as they could not be concluded within a day, they were postponed to the next day. King Louis sent the army to lock up the hall of the Estates- General and armed men were placed to prevent any entry.
On the morning of June 20, 1789, the deputies were shocked to discover that the doors to their chamber were locked and guarded by soldiers.
Immediately fearing the worst and anxious that a royal coup was imminent, the deputies congregated in a nearby indoor tennis court where they took a solemn collective oath ‘never to separate, and to meet wherever circumstances demand, until the constitution of the kingdom is established and affirmed on solid foundations’.
They assembled at a tennis court and took an oath now famously called, ‘The Tennis Court Oath’. The oath was both a revolutionary act, and an assertion that political authority derived from the people and their representatives rather than from the monarch himself.
Their solidarity forced king Louis XVI to order the clergy and the nobility to join with the Third Estate in the National Assembly.
There has been a lot of brouhaha in regard to the meeting under the rain tree. Detractors have criticised the meeting under the tree, saying, ‘...it is a mockery of the system’ and made Perak look ‘uncivilised’.
Another critic said ‘The meeting under the tree is invalid. Everything is not done in a proper manner. As I has said before, the whole episode in Perak is a comedy and a mockery. It does not surprise me to see the episode of holding a meeting under the tree’.
Obviously the detractors are not aware of world history.
V Sivakumar is still the speaker of the state assembly and since the state assembly was blocked he was entitled to choose a different venue to meet.
This has raised a novel issue of whether the 28 representatives of Pakatan Rakyat, in holding an emergency sitting of the state assembly under an angsana tree, constituted an illegal assembly.
The issue here is whether the assembly is illegal. I am of the view that it is not illegal as the speaker can convene the assembly. What the speaker has done is to continue with the fourth sitting of the first session of the 12th legislative assembly of Perak.
The meeting of the assembly was adjourned and not prorogued nor was it dissolved. Noted historian George Santyana said, ‘History repeats itself but no one pays attention’.
In regard to this episode of convening the state assembly under a tree, there is an historical antecedent.
In 1789, King Louis XVI of France summoned the Estates-General which comprised of the First Estate (representing the clergy), the Second Estate (the nobility) and the Third Estate (the commoners).
In the Estates-General, the debates were strident and as they could not be concluded within a day, they were postponed to the next day. King Louis sent the army to lock up the hall of the Estates- General and armed men were placed to prevent any entry.
On the morning of June 20, 1789, the deputies were shocked to discover that the doors to their chamber were locked and guarded by soldiers.
Immediately fearing the worst and anxious that a royal coup was imminent, the deputies congregated in a nearby indoor tennis court where they took a solemn collective oath ‘never to separate, and to meet wherever circumstances demand, until the constitution of the kingdom is established and affirmed on solid foundations’.
They assembled at a tennis court and took an oath now famously called, ‘The Tennis Court Oath’. The oath was both a revolutionary act, and an assertion that political authority derived from the people and their representatives rather than from the monarch himself.
Their solidarity forced king Louis XVI to order the clergy and the nobility to join with the Third Estate in the National Assembly.
There has been a lot of brouhaha in regard to the meeting under the rain tree. Detractors have criticised the meeting under the tree, saying, ‘...it is a mockery of the system’ and made Perak look ‘uncivilised’.
Another critic said ‘The meeting under the tree is invalid. Everything is not done in a proper manner. As I has said before, the whole episode in Perak is a comedy and a mockery. It does not surprise me to see the episode of holding a meeting under the tree’.
Obviously the detractors are not aware of world history.
V Sivakumar is still the speaker of the state assembly and since the state assembly was blocked he was entitled to choose a different venue to meet.
View Comments0