And this is what a afterwards Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad pronounced behind in a 1980s. He told Malaysians which a Sultans have been not upon top of a law. The Sultans can be chastised as well as taken to task. Dr Mahathir afterwards told us how even a First Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, used to discuss it a Rulers off (although in in isolation as well as not publicly like Dr Mahathir did).
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
'Ultra vires' is a Latin tenure definition 'beyond powers' -- such as over a authorised energy or management of a person, official or body, or over a range or in excess of a authorised energy or authority. This tenure is usually used to refer to acts taken by persons which have been taken outward of a powers or management postulated to them by law.
And which is what Karpal Singh questioned: whether a Sultan of Perak had a authorised energy to mislay a Perak Menteri Besar, Nizar Jamaluddin, over 3 years ago. And for which Karpal was charged for a crime of sedition.
'Sedition', in turn, is any debate or behaviour directed opposite a assent of a state. This would be regarded as an offence which tends to undermine a management of a state such as an incitement to open commotion or rebellion. In Malaysia, mutiny is additionally used opposite anyone who 'incites hatred' opposite domestic leaders, Rulers, or members of their family (such as a wife of a Deputy Prime Minister or Prime Minister).
TheUtusan Malaysiareporter, however, who reported what Karpal said, did not assimilate a definition of a tenure 'ultra vires'. During a trial, a contributor pronounced he suspicion which Karpal was scornful a Sultan. (Read a headlines inform below).
The subject here is: does Karpal, a distinguished lawyer, assimilate a law as ! well as knows what a powers of a Sultan have been underneath a Perak State Constitution? we would say he does.
And, as a counsel representing his client, is Karpal entitled to give his views upon points of law?
Under 'normal' resources he would (although ther! e is a d anger of subjudice if he comments upon an ongoing trial). However, given he gave his perspective upon a action or control of a Sultan, a supervision says he has committed a crime of sedition.
This sends Malaysia behind to a time of Henry VIII when to subject a king is to subject God as well as thus is an action of sedition. The supervision is additionally revelation us which a Rulers have been upon top of a law as well as cannot be questioned.
How distant is a Sultan upon top of a law? Can a Sultan dedicate a crime as well as escape punishment?
Sultan Ali of Terengganu was sacked in 1945 as well as transposed with Sultan Ismail. Sultan Musa of Selangor was sacked in 1945 as well as transposed with Sultan Alam Shah. And both times a usually 'crime' these dual Sultans committed was which they were installed onto a throne by a Japanese during WWII.
The British, however, refused to recognise a Japanese-installed Sultan nonetheless they were installed according to a correct Malay etiquette as well as traditions (adat istiadat Melayu) as well as hence were legitimate Sultans. So a British had them removed as well as replaced.
So, starting by history (and a 'law' of precedence), Sultans have been not upon top of a law. And Sultans not usually can be questioned (on points of law) though additionally can, in fact, be removed if they have been perceived as carrying violated a law (although both Sultan Ali as well as Sultan Musa did not break any laws).
And this is what a afterwards Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad pronounced behind in a 1980s. He told Malaysians which a Sultans have been not upon top of a law. The Sultans can be chastised as well as taken to task. Dr Mahathir afterwards! told us how even a ! First Pr ime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, used to discuss it a Rulers off (although in in isolation as well as not publicly like Dr Mahathir did).
In fact, Dr Mahathir set up a 'Special Court' so which Sultans who mess around or break a law can be brought to trial. For a initial time in history given a French Revolution, Rulers will face hearing if they dedicate an offence.
Did Karpal break a law -- which is, dedicate sedition? we would say no. Karpal did not action ultra vires by starting over his powers as a lawyer. My perspective is a Sultan of Perak might have instead damaged a law (ultra vires) by removing a Perak Menteri Besar unconstitutionally. And it is inside of Karpal's right to criticism upon what he views as a ultra vires action of a Sultan.
But then, hey, we am not a lawyer, so my comments lift no weight. However, we have always said: we need to be intelligent to be a lawyer, though we do not need to be a counsel to be smart. And we consider we am intelligent sufficient to know what is 'ultra vires' as well as what is 'sedition'.
Can we get my law grade now?
And which is what Karpal Singh questioned: whether a Sultan of Perak had a authorised energy to mislay a Perak Menteri Besar, Nizar Jamaluddin, over 3 years ago. And for which Karpal was charged for a crime of sedition.
'Sedition', in turn, is any debate or behaviour directed opposite a assent of a state. This would be regarded as an offence which tends to undermine a management of a state such as an incitement to open commotion or rebellion. In Malaysia, mutiny is additionally used opposite anyone who 'incites hatred' opposite domestic leaders, Rulers, or members of their family (such as a wife of a Deputy Prime Minister or Prime Minister).
TheUtusan Malaysiareporter, however, who reported what Karpal said, did not assimilate a definition of a tenure 'ultra vires'. During a trial, a contributor pronounced he suspicion which Karpal was scornful a Sultan. (Read a headlines inform below).
The subject here is: does Karpal, a distinguished lawyer, assimilate a law as ! well as knows what a powers of a Sultan have been underneath a Perak State Constitution? we would say he does.
And, as a counsel representing his client, is Karpal entitled to give his views upon points of law?
Under 'normal' resources he would (although ther! e is a d anger of subjudice if he comments upon an ongoing trial). However, given he gave his perspective upon a action or control of a Sultan, a supervision says he has committed a crime of sedition.
This sends Malaysia behind to a time of Henry VIII when to subject a king is to subject God as well as thus is an action of sedition. The supervision is additionally revelation us which a Rulers have been upon top of a law as well as cannot be questioned.
How distant is a Sultan upon top of a law? Can a Sultan dedicate a crime as well as escape punishment?
Sultan Ali of Terengganu was sacked in 1945 as well as transposed with Sultan Ismail. Sultan Musa of Selangor was sacked in 1945 as well as transposed with Sultan Alam Shah. And both times a usually 'crime' these dual Sultans committed was which they were installed onto a throne by a Japanese during WWII.
The British, however, refused to recognise a Japanese-installed Sultan nonetheless they were installed according to a correct Malay etiquette as well as traditions (adat istiadat Melayu) as well as hence were legitimate Sultans. So a British had them removed as well as replaced.
So, starting by history (and a 'law' of precedence), Sultans have been not upon top of a law. And Sultans not usually can be questioned (on points of law) though additionally can, in fact, be removed if they have been perceived as carrying violated a law (although both Sultan Ali as well as Sultan Musa did not break any laws).
And this is what a afterwards Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad pronounced behind in a 1980s. He told Malaysians which a Sultans have been not upon top of a law. The Sultans can be chastised as well as taken to task. Dr Mahathir afterwards! told us how even a ! First Pr ime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, used to discuss it a Rulers off (although in in isolation as well as not publicly like Dr Mahathir did).
In fact, Dr Mahathir set up a 'Special Court' so which Sultans who mess around or break a law can be brought to trial. For a initial time in history given a French Revolution, Rulers will face hearing if they dedicate an offence.
Did Karpal break a law -- which is, dedicate sedition? we would say no. Karpal did not action ultra vires by starting over his powers as a lawyer. My perspective is a Sultan of Perak might have instead damaged a law (ultra vires) by removing a Perak Menteri Besar unconstitutionally. And it is inside of Karpal's right to criticism upon what he views as a ultra vires action of a Sultan.
But then, hey, we am not a lawyer, so my comments lift no weight. However, we have always said: we need to be intelligent to be a lawyer, though we do not need to be a counsel to be smart. And we consider we am intelligent sufficient to know what is 'ultra vires' as well as what is 'sedition'.
Can we get my law grade now?
**************************
Karpal systematic to come in counterclaim over mutiny rap
(New Straits Times, twenty-one Jan 2012) - Lawyer Karpal Singh was systematic to come in his counterclaim for allegedly uttering factious difference opposite a Sultan of Perak 3 years ago.
A three-man Court of Appeal dais unanimously pronounced a charge had determined a prima facie box opposite Karpal, a DAP inhabitant authority as well as Bukit Glugor part of of parliament.
"After evaluating every word as well as visualisation by a accused, who is a well well known counsel as well as MP, we have been confident which it was uttered to incite loathing between a subjects of a ruler," decider Datuk Ahmad Maarop pronounced in permitting a interest by a open prosecutor.
Ahmad, right away a Federal Court decider said, a ! lawyer's press discussion during his bureau exceeded a boundaries of freedom of speech.
The justice has bound February 9 for a box to be mentioned during a High Court in Kuala Lumpur.
Karpal, 71, was charged with uttering factious difference opposite a sultan during his authorised firm in Jalan Pudu Lama here upon February 6, 2009.
He was purported to have pronounced which a removal of Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as Perak Menteri ! Besar by a sultan could be questioned in a justice of law.
Karpal pronounced he had relied upon a exception to mutiny by pointing out which a ruler was misled.
The High Court upon June 11, 2010, acquitted Karpal as well as hearing decider Datuk Azman Abdullah pronounced a charge had unsuccessful to infer a ingredients underneath Section 3(1) of a Sedition Act 1948.
Those found guilty can be jailed up to 3 years or slapped with a limit excellent of RM5,000, or both.
Ahmad, who took about 21/2 hours to broach a visualisation in Bahasa Malaysia yesterday, pronounced a charge could move in a new sustenance -- Section 3(1)(f) -- even during a interest stage nonetheless it did not rely upon this sustenance during trial.
"The evidence by a counterclaim which it was put in a tactical disadvantage therefore, cannot be accepted," he said.
Section 3(1)(f) states a single would have committed mutiny in questioning a right, status, position privilege, sovereignty or privilege determined or protected underneath a Federal Constitution.
At a High Court a charge had relied upon Section 3(1)(a) as well as (d) to infer a box opposite Karpal.
Ahmad, who sat with Datuk Clement Allan Skinner as well as Datuk Seri Mohamed Apandi Ali, additionally pronounced Section 3(1)(f) was inherent as it did not violate a right of giveaway debate as well as expression.
He pronounced a goal of an indicted was not pertinent for committing a factious offence.
Ahmad pronounced Karpal regularly uttered difference to denote w! hich a s ultan did not follow a Perak Constitution as well as had no respect for a law.
A defiant Karpal after pronounced he had a option to take this make a difference to a Federal Court.
"There is a box management which states which an indicted who is systematic to come in counterclaim must return to a hearing court.
"I will plea this as it is unconstitutional as well as affects a rights of an indicted person."
(New Straits Times, twenty-one Jan 2012) - Lawyer Karpal Singh was systematic to come in his counterclaim for allegedly uttering factious difference opposite a Sultan of Perak 3 years ago.
A three-man Court of Appeal dais unanimously pronounced a charge had determined a prima facie box opposite Karpal, a DAP inhabitant authority as well as Bukit Glugor part of of parliament.
"After evaluating every word as well as visualisation by a accused, who is a well well known counsel as well as MP, we have been confident which it was uttered to incite loathing between a subjects of a ruler," decider Datuk Ahmad Maarop pronounced in permitting a interest by a open prosecutor.
Ahmad, right away a Federal Court decider said, a ! lawyer's press discussion during his bureau exceeded a boundaries of freedom of speech.
The justice has bound February 9 for a box to be mentioned during a High Court in Kuala Lumpur.
Karpal, 71, was charged with uttering factious difference opposite a sultan during his authorised firm in Jalan Pudu Lama here upon February 6, 2009.
He was purported to have pronounced which a removal of Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as Perak Menteri ! Besar by a sultan could be questioned in a justice of law.
Karpal pronounced he had relied upon a exception to mutiny by pointing out which a ruler was misled.
The High Court upon June 11, 2010, acquitted Karpal as well as hearing decider Datuk Azman Abdullah pronounced a charge had unsuccessful to infer a ingredients underneath Section 3(1) of a Sedition Act 1948.
Those found guilty can be jailed up to 3 years or slapped with a limit excellent of RM5,000, or both.
Ahmad, who took about 21/2 hours to broach a visualisation in Bahasa Malaysia yesterday, pronounced a charge could move in a new sustenance -- Section 3(1)(f) -- even during a interest stage nonetheless it did not rely upon this sustenance during trial.
"The evidence by a counterclaim which it was put in a tactical disadvantage therefore, cannot be accepted," he said.
Section 3(1)(f) states a single would have committed mutiny in questioning a right, status, position privilege, sovereignty or privilege determined or protected underneath a Federal Constitution.
At a High Court a charge had relied upon Section 3(1)(a) as well as (d) to infer a box opposite Karpal.
Ahmad, who sat with Datuk Clement Allan Skinner as well as Datuk Seri Mohamed Apandi Ali, additionally pronounced Section 3(1)(f) was inherent as it did not violate a right of giveaway debate as well as expression.
He pronounced a goal of an indicted was not pertinent for committing a factious offence.
Ahmad pronounced Karpal regularly uttered difference to denote w! hich a s ultan did not follow a Perak Constitution as well as had no respect for a law.
A defiant Karpal after pronounced he had a option to take this make a difference to a Federal Court.
"There is a box management which states which an indicted who is systematic to come in counterclaim must return to a hearing court.
"I will plea this as it is unconstitutional as well as affects a rights of an indicted person."
**************************
Utusan contributor says he suspicion ultra vires equates to 'to insult'
(The Malaysian Insider, twelve Aug 2009) -Utusan Malaysiareporter Mohd Nizam Mohd Yatim told a High Court today which he suspicion a word "ultra vires" contained in a press recover issued by Karpal Singh meant a DAP man was scornful a Perak Sultan.
Mohd Nizam, a prosecution's initial declare in Karpal's mutiny trial, was subjected to a severe interrogate by counterclaim counsel Jagdeep Singh Deo, as well as appeared rattled by a lawyer's questions.
At a single point theUtusan Malaysiareporter did not crop up to even know what Karpal Singh was being charged with.
The contributor was additionally incompetent to uncover a clear understanding of a barrage of questions by Jagdeep upon a four-page press statement distributed by Karpal during a press discussion upon February 6 this year.
The DAP authority as well as Bukit Gelugor MP was charged with mutiny upon Mar seventeen for saying Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin's removal as Perak mentri besar by Sultan Azlan Shah could be questioned in a justice of law.
The maestro lawyer-politician was charged in a Sessions Court in KL prior to decider Mohamad Sekeri Mamat underneath Section 4(1)(b) of a Sedition Act 1948.
Karpal is further indicted of several other factious statements associated to a entire Perak inherent crisis which began dual months ago.
He is indicted of committing a crime during a press discuss! ion duri ng his law firm here upon February 6.
During cross-examination, Jagdeep had asked a 38-year-old reporter: "Do we determine which his (Karpal) view upon a constitution is sought after?"
Mohd Nizam: "I am not sure."
Jagdeep: "Do we determine which he (Karpal) is well known as a intelligent laywer?"
Mohd Nizam: "I am not sure."
Jagdeep: "If we still do not know after eight years working afterwards we should begin doing your work properly."
Jagdeep afterwards proceeded to ask him if he understood a press recover given it was in English.
Mohd Nizam: "I usually assimilate it in general as well as not thoroughly."
Jagdeep afterwards asked a contributor if he concluded which what was pronounced in a press discussion was usually an perspective of a inherent crisis in Perak.
"I usually inform as well as do not give opinion," Mohd Nizam replied.
The answer appeared to irrit! ate Jagd eep who indicted Mohd Nizam of being insincere.
Jagdeep afterwards told Mohd Nizam to review part of a press recover to a court.
Mohd Nizam: "Although a orders have been confirmed by a Sultan. If a preference is ultra vires afterwards a preference can be adjudicated by a court."
Jagdeep afterwards asked Nizam to explain what ultra vires equates to to a court.
Nizam looking confused as well as replied: "To insult."
Jagdeep afterwards told Mohd Nizam which his disagreement of a word had caused disharmony in a country given a word essentially equates to "beyond a powers".
Mohd Nizam was afterwards asked what were questions were thrown during Karpal during a press conference.
Nizam explained which reporters longed for to explain if Karpal meant which he was starting to move a Sultan to court.
"So do we determine which Karpal did not say which he will sue?" Jagdeep asked.
"Agree," Nizam replied.
After a cross-examination, a counterclaim group requested Judicial Commissioner Azman Abdullah for a witness! 's inter rogate to be adjourned until it could subject another declare upon a twin of a press conference.
Azman afterwards asked a charge to call a subsequent witness.
But a charge could not move a subsequent witness, an RTM reporter, given he had unsuccessful to uncover up as well as could not be contacted.
The hearing was afterwards adjourned to tomorrow afternoon.
Read More @ Source (The Malaysian Insider, twelve Aug 2009) -Utusan Malaysiareporter Mohd Nizam Mohd Yatim told a High Court today which he suspicion a word "ultra vires" contained in a press recover issued by Karpal Singh meant a DAP man was scornful a Perak Sultan.
Mohd Nizam, a prosecution's initial declare in Karpal's mutiny trial, was subjected to a severe interrogate by counterclaim counsel Jagdeep Singh Deo, as well as appeared rattled by a lawyer's questions.
At a single point theUtusan Malaysiareporter did not crop up to even know what Karpal Singh was being charged with.
The contributor was additionally incompetent to uncover a clear understanding of a barrage of questions by Jagdeep upon a four-page press statement distributed by Karpal during a press discussion upon February 6 this year.
The DAP authority as well as Bukit Gelugor MP was charged with mutiny upon Mar seventeen for saying Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin's removal as Perak mentri besar by Sultan Azlan Shah could be questioned in a justice of law.
The maestro lawyer-politician was charged in a Sessions Court in KL prior to decider Mohamad Sekeri Mamat underneath Section 4(1)(b) of a Sedition Act 1948.
Karpal is further indicted of several other factious statements associated to a entire Perak inherent crisis which began dual months ago.
He is indicted of committing a crime during a press discuss! ion duri ng his law firm here upon February 6.
During cross-examination, Jagdeep had asked a 38-year-old reporter: "Do we determine which his (Karpal) view upon a constitution is sought after?"
Mohd Nizam: "I am not sure."
Jagdeep: "Do we determine which he (Karpal) is well known as a intelligent laywer?"
Mohd Nizam: "I am not sure."
Jagdeep: "If we still do not know after eight years working afterwards we should begin doing your work properly."
Jagdeep afterwards proceeded to ask him if he understood a press recover given it was in English.
Mohd Nizam: "I usually assimilate it in general as well as not thoroughly."
Jagdeep afterwards asked a contributor if he concluded which what was pronounced in a press discussion was usually an perspective of a inherent crisis in Perak.
"I usually inform as well as do not give opinion," Mohd Nizam replied.
The answer appeared to irrit! ate Jagd eep who indicted Mohd Nizam of being insincere.
Jagdeep afterwards told Mohd Nizam to review part of a press recover to a court.
Mohd Nizam: "Although a orders have been confirmed by a Sultan. If a preference is ultra vires afterwards a preference can be adjudicated by a court."
Jagdeep afterwards asked Nizam to explain what ultra vires equates to to a court.
Nizam looking confused as well as replied: "To insult."
Jagdeep afterwards told Mohd Nizam which his disagreement of a word had caused disharmony in a country given a word essentially equates to "beyond a powers".
Mohd Nizam was afterwards asked what were questions were thrown during Karpal during a press conference.
Nizam explained which reporters longed for to explain if Karpal meant which he was starting to move a Sultan to court.
"So do we determine which Karpal did not say which he will sue?" Jagdeep asked.
"Agree," Nizam replied.
After a cross-examination, a counterclaim group requested Judicial Commissioner Azman Abdullah for a witness! 's inter rogate to be adjourned until it could subject another declare upon a twin of a press conference.
Azman afterwards asked a charge to call a subsequent witness.
But a charge could not move a subsequent witness, an RTM reporter, given he had unsuccessful to uncover up as well as could not be contacted.
The hearing was afterwards adjourned to tomorrow afternoon.
More Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |
Courtesy of Bonology.com Politically Incorrect Buzz & Buzz
No comments:
Post a Comment