By P. Ramakrishnan, Aliran's President
4 Nov 2011
Nazri has given countenance to a saying, "Talking through a hat!" That was what he was you do when he rather foolishly commented upon a infancy preference of a Court of Appeal which ruled in a landmark box which Section 15(5)(a) of a Universities as well as University Colleges Act was unconstitutional.
In spite of a Court of Appeal's ruling, for a Minister of Law to demand which "it does not nullify a Act" as well as to boot a Court's preference as "an perspective in passing" is abominable as well as shocking, exposing his alarming stupidity of a legal process.
Section 15(5)(a) has been invalidated as unconstitutional by a Court of Appeal statute which equates to which a supplies of which territory have been no longer germane as well as cannot be enforced. That section, as a result of a Court's decision, is blank as well as invalid.
It is a contracting preference as well as cannot be dismissed merely as "an perspective of a Court" but any consequence. Until as well as unless a Federal Court overturns or sets aside this statute thus await a High Court preference no energy upon earth professing a approved convention can omit this decision. It is as simple as that!
It is intensely unfortunate which a Minister for Law has shown meagre apply oneself for a legal routine by not taking a Court preference seriously. His dismissive remarks mock our law as well as he himself comes opposite as a left-handed clown.
"This is law, passed by us as lawmakers. There contingency be separation of powers," he thundered. If he respects a separation of powers, afterwards he contingency not poke his nose where it does not belong!
The law has an inherent independent management conferred by a Federal Constitution to "act but fright or foster (and) liberate their grave shortcoming of pronouncing visualisation upon a effect of senior manager as well! as legi slative acts as well as upon a definition of any sustenance of a federal as well as state constitutions " as obviously expounded by a late Tun Mohamed Suffian.
According to Tun Suffian, Courts have a energy to pronounce upon a effect of legislative acts as well as to interpret a Constitution.
When good minds have given their deliberate opinion, it is fatuous to split hairs.
Perhaps Nazri, as he is disposed to be so vocal, can help us in clarifying what is deemed as a contradiction.
Is there a counterbalance in a UUCA in which it doesn't seem to be germane to all a university students?
Why is it which a UUCA is usually germane to students of local universities? Why have been students of abroad universities exempted from this Act?
And a more pertinent question is: Why do roughly all nations espousing approved traditions refrain from subjecting their university students to such restrictions as spelt out in our UCCA?
How is it which Umno Club members comprising abroad students have been permitted to attend a Umno General Assembly regularly? Aren't they additionally violating a supplies of this Act which state no student shall express or do anything which may pretty be construed as expressing await or sympathy with or opposition to any political party in or outward Malaysia?
These Umno Club members plainly express their await for Umno as well as by you do so, do not they fall foul of this Act? Or is it a box of resourceful application?
Now which a Court had ruled, these Umno Club members henceforth can legitimately attend Umno General Assemblies, something which was not right previously.
This entry was posted upon Saturday, 5 Nov 2011, 2:00 pm as well as is filed underneath Constitution, Human Rights, university. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0.
Lim Kit Siang
No comments:
Post a Comment