Beberapa orang ahli politik negara dilaporkan membuat kenyataan bahawa sekiranya perubahan kerajaan dilaksanakan melalui "lompat parti" ianya tak sah dan tidak bermoral.
Benarkah kenyataan ini? Marilah kita fikirkan bersama.
Proses penukaran kerajaan pada tahap Persekutuan melalui proses lompat parti tidak pernah lagi terjadi, namun ianya telah beberapa kali berlaku diperingkat negeri seperti apa yang berlaku di Sarawak & Sabah. Ianya juga hampir terjadi di Kelantan apabila ADUN Limbungan & Sungai Pinang melompat masuk BN dahulu.
Dilampirkan salinan ekstrak kes DATUK (DATU) AMIR KAHAR BIN TUN DATU HAJI MUSTAPHA lawanTUN MOHD SAID BIN KERUAK & 8 ORS.yang diputuskan oleh Yang Arif Dato' Hj. Abdul Kadir Sulaiman pada 24hb November 1994.
Secara ringkasnya, Barisan Nasional telah mengambil alih pemerintahan Negeri Sabah dengan menubuhkan kerajaan baru apabila ahli dewan undangan negeri melompat parti.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Resignation of Chief Minister of Sabah - Whether amounted to resignation of the whole Cabinet - Whether other members of the Cabinet were deemed to have vacated their offices - Constitution of Sabah, Arts. 6(3), 7(1),(2), 10(2)(b).
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Constitution of Sabah - Evidence of Chief Minister ceasing to command the confidence of the majority members of the Legislative Assembly - Whether determinable only by way of motion in the Legislative Assembly - Whether also
availabe from other extraneous sources.
Benarkah kenyataan ini? Marilah kita fikirkan bersama.
Proses penukaran kerajaan pada tahap Persekutuan melalui proses lompat parti tidak pernah lagi terjadi, namun ianya telah beberapa kali berlaku diperingkat negeri seperti apa yang berlaku di Sarawak & Sabah. Ianya juga hampir terjadi di Kelantan apabila ADUN Limbungan & Sungai Pinang melompat masuk BN dahulu.
Dilampirkan salinan ekstrak kes DATUK (DATU) AMIR KAHAR BIN TUN DATU HAJI MUSTAPHA lawanTUN MOHD SAID BIN KERUAK & 8 ORS.yang diputuskan oleh Yang Arif Dato' Hj. Abdul Kadir Sulaiman pada 24hb November 1994.
Secara ringkasnya, Barisan Nasional telah mengambil alih pemerintahan Negeri Sabah dengan menubuhkan kerajaan baru apabila ahli dewan undangan negeri melompat parti.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Resignation of Chief Minister of Sabah - Whether amounted to resignation of the whole Cabinet - Whether other members of the Cabinet were deemed to have vacated their offices - Constitution of Sabah, Arts. 6(3), 7(1),(2), 10(2)(b).
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Constitution of Sabah - Evidence of Chief Minister ceasing to command the confidence of the majority members of the Legislative Assembly - Whether determinable only by way of motion in the Legislative Assembly - Whether also
availabe from other extraneous sources.
WORDS AND PHRASES: “to command the confidence of a majority of the members of the Assembly” - Articles 6(3) & 7(1) State Constitution of Sabah.
On 21 February 1994, following a State election in Sabah, the 1st defendant, the Yang di-Pertua Negeri of Sabah, appointed one Datuk Pairin as the Chief Minister of Sabah. Datuk Pairin was the leader of PBS, the party that won the election. Consequently other elected members from PBS, including the plaintfiff, were appointed to the Cabinet and by that, the plaintiff was made a State Minister.
On 16 March 1994, there was a mass exodus of PBS assemblyme to BN, the opposition party. This turn of event had reversed the majority position in the Assembly vis-a-vis the two parties, as the BN, by then, had 33 seats as against 21 held by PBS. On 17 March 1994, following established convention, Datuk Pairin tendered his resignation as Chief Minister. The plaintiff however did not tender his resignation. On that same day the BN formed a new government in Sabah and the 1st defendant, in accordance with constitutional requirements, duly appointed the 2nd defendant, the leader of BN, as the new Chief Minister. The 3rd to the 9th defendants were later appointed to the new Cabinet.
The plaintiff challenged the legality of the new Government and sought for a declaration that the resignation of Datuk Pairin, being personal in nature, had not affected his Cabinet and hence, the plaintiff’s own position as a duly appointed State Minister. The primary issue that arose was whether the resignation of Datuk Pairin herein was constitutionally proper and effective, and if so, whether that resignation in law amounted to the resignation of his whole Cabinet.
Held:
[1] Article 7(1) of the Constitution in effect requires the Chief Minister to tender the resignation of the members of his Cabinet, including himself, if he ceases to command the confidence of a majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly. Thus once a Chief Minister in fact knows that he has lost that confidence, he should not wait for a vote of confidence to be formally tabled in the Assembly but should immediately take the honourable way out by tendering the resignation of his Cabinet. However, even if the Chief Minister, under those circumstances refuses or does not tender the resignation of the members of the Cabinet, or if he tenders the resignation of himself alone, the fact remains that the Cabinet is dissolved on account of him losing the confidence of a majority of the members of the Assembly. This is not only the effect of Art. 7(1) but also the established convention. Therefore, notwithstanding that Datuk Pairin’s resignation letter herein was silent as to the resignation of the other members of his Cabinet, the resignation was in fact a resignation of the whole members of his Cabinet, including the plaintiff, by virtue of Art. 7(1) of the State Constitution. And on the acceptance by the 1st defendant of that resignation, the whole Cabinet of Datuk Pairin collapsed.
[2] The evidence that a Chief Minister ceases to command the confidence of the majority members of the Assembly for the purpose of Art. 7(1) of the Constitution is not only available from the votes taken in the Assembly. There is nothing in the Constitution which can be construed as requiring that the test of confidence must be by a vote taken in the Assembly itself. That fact can also be evidenced by other extraneous sources, including through the knowledge of the Chief Minister himself from the surrounding circumstances as testified by this case. Here, that extraneous source is to be found in the clear expression contained in the petition by the 30 assemblymen to the 1st defendant and the admission of that fact by Datuk Pairin. This clear expression suffices for the 1st defendant to exercise his discretion under Art. 6(3) to appoint the 2nd defendant as the new Chief Minister. Therefore the appointment of the 2nd defendant as the new Chief Minister on 17 March 1994 was valid and constitutional.
[3] The appointments of the 3rd to the 9th defendants on 24 March 1994 was in accordance with the provisions of Art. 6(3) of the Constitution and were therefore valid. The contention that for their appointment to be legal and constitutional, the 1st defendant must first revoke the appointment of the other members of Datuk Pairin’s Cabinet, and that the 2nd defendant ought to have advised the 1st defendant to undertake such revocation, is not sustainable. If there need to be a revocation of the appointment at all under Art. 7(2) of the Constitution, the proper Chief Minister to tender the advice to the 1st defendant must be the Chief Minister of the Cabinet of which these other members are appointed as such, for it was this Chief Minister who brought those members into his Cabinet pursuant to Art. 6 of the Constitution. If this Chief Minister himself ceases to hold office, as is the case here, then the new Chief Minister has no power to advise the 1st defendant for their removal unless, before the intended advice, those members were re-appointed to the Cabinet of this new Chief Minister whereby pursuant to the re-appointment. This however did not happen.
On 21 February 1994, following a State election in Sabah, the 1st defendant, the Yang di-Pertua Negeri of Sabah, appointed one Datuk Pairin as the Chief Minister of Sabah. Datuk Pairin was the leader of PBS, the party that won the election. Consequently other elected members from PBS, including the plaintfiff, were appointed to the Cabinet and by that, the plaintiff was made a State Minister.
On 16 March 1994, there was a mass exodus of PBS assemblyme to BN, the opposition party. This turn of event had reversed the majority position in the Assembly vis-a-vis the two parties, as the BN, by then, had 33 seats as against 21 held by PBS. On 17 March 1994, following established convention, Datuk Pairin tendered his resignation as Chief Minister. The plaintiff however did not tender his resignation. On that same day the BN formed a new government in Sabah and the 1st defendant, in accordance with constitutional requirements, duly appointed the 2nd defendant, the leader of BN, as the new Chief Minister. The 3rd to the 9th defendants were later appointed to the new Cabinet.
The plaintiff challenged the legality of the new Government and sought for a declaration that the resignation of Datuk Pairin, being personal in nature, had not affected his Cabinet and hence, the plaintiff’s own position as a duly appointed State Minister. The primary issue that arose was whether the resignation of Datuk Pairin herein was constitutionally proper and effective, and if so, whether that resignation in law amounted to the resignation of his whole Cabinet.
Held:
[1] Article 7(1) of the Constitution in effect requires the Chief Minister to tender the resignation of the members of his Cabinet, including himself, if he ceases to command the confidence of a majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly. Thus once a Chief Minister in fact knows that he has lost that confidence, he should not wait for a vote of confidence to be formally tabled in the Assembly but should immediately take the honourable way out by tendering the resignation of his Cabinet. However, even if the Chief Minister, under those circumstances refuses or does not tender the resignation of the members of the Cabinet, or if he tenders the resignation of himself alone, the fact remains that the Cabinet is dissolved on account of him losing the confidence of a majority of the members of the Assembly. This is not only the effect of Art. 7(1) but also the established convention. Therefore, notwithstanding that Datuk Pairin’s resignation letter herein was silent as to the resignation of the other members of his Cabinet, the resignation was in fact a resignation of the whole members of his Cabinet, including the plaintiff, by virtue of Art. 7(1) of the State Constitution. And on the acceptance by the 1st defendant of that resignation, the whole Cabinet of Datuk Pairin collapsed.
[2] The evidence that a Chief Minister ceases to command the confidence of the majority members of the Assembly for the purpose of Art. 7(1) of the Constitution is not only available from the votes taken in the Assembly. There is nothing in the Constitution which can be construed as requiring that the test of confidence must be by a vote taken in the Assembly itself. That fact can also be evidenced by other extraneous sources, including through the knowledge of the Chief Minister himself from the surrounding circumstances as testified by this case. Here, that extraneous source is to be found in the clear expression contained in the petition by the 30 assemblymen to the 1st defendant and the admission of that fact by Datuk Pairin. This clear expression suffices for the 1st defendant to exercise his discretion under Art. 6(3) to appoint the 2nd defendant as the new Chief Minister. Therefore the appointment of the 2nd defendant as the new Chief Minister on 17 March 1994 was valid and constitutional.
[3] The appointments of the 3rd to the 9th defendants on 24 March 1994 was in accordance with the provisions of Art. 6(3) of the Constitution and were therefore valid. The contention that for their appointment to be legal and constitutional, the 1st defendant must first revoke the appointment of the other members of Datuk Pairin’s Cabinet, and that the 2nd defendant ought to have advised the 1st defendant to undertake such revocation, is not sustainable. If there need to be a revocation of the appointment at all under Art. 7(2) of the Constitution, the proper Chief Minister to tender the advice to the 1st defendant must be the Chief Minister of the Cabinet of which these other members are appointed as such, for it was this Chief Minister who brought those members into his Cabinet pursuant to Art. 6 of the Constitution. If this Chief Minister himself ceases to hold office, as is the case here, then the new Chief Minister has no power to advise the 1st defendant for their removal unless, before the intended advice, those members were re-appointed to the Cabinet of this new Chief Minister whereby pursuant to the re-appointment. This however did not happen.
[Application dismissed]
Cases referred to:
Adegbenro v. Akintola [1963] 3 WLR 63 (foll)
Stephen Kalong Ningkan v. Tun Abang Haji Openg and Tawi Sli [1966] 2 MLJ 187 (dist)
Other sources referred to:
Indian Constitutional Law, 4th Ed. p. 87 by M.P. Jain
For the plaintiff - Y.M. Raja Aziz Addruse (Yunof E. Maringking with him); M/s Maringking & Co.
For 1st, 2nd, 4th, to 9th defendants - Abdul Ghani Patail, SFC (K.K. Wong, and Halimah Nawab with him).
Yang menarik perhatian penulis adalah wakil peguam penasihat undang-undang Negeri Sabah ketika itu iaitu Peguam Negara kita sekarang ini.
Didalam kes yang dilaporkan itu juga disertakan surat (sebagai bukti) yang dikemukakan kepada Speaker Dewan Undangan Negeri Sabah mengenai keputusan majoriti ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri yang tidak lagi memberi kepercayaan kepada Ketua Menteri, Datuk Pairin dan seterusnya mencadangkan nama calon Ketua Menteri yang baru. (Boleh dijadikan contoh untuk Pakatan Rakyat).
Tuan
Yang Terutama, Tarikh: 16 Mac 1994
Tun Haji Said Bin Keruak
d/a Istana
Kota Kinabalu
Sabah
Tuan Yang Terutama Tun,
1. Kami selaku Ahli-Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (ADUN) Sabah yang baru dipilih dan sebagai penyokong Barisan Nasional dengan hormatnya memaklumkan kepada Tun bahawa kami tidak lagi mempunyai kepercayaan kepada Datuk Seri Joseph Pairin Kitingan dan kami tidak akan menyokong Datuk Seri Joseph Pairin Kitingan, Pemimpin Parti Bersatu Sabah sebagai Ketua Menteri Sabah.
2. Kami juga memohon memaklumkan Tun bahawa Barisan Nasional dan penyokong-penyokongnya sekarang menguasai majoriti di kalangan Ahli-Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri.
3. Oleh itu dengan segala hormatnya kami ingin menegaskan bahawa Datuk Seri Joseph Pairin Kitingan atau pemimpin-pemimpin dan parti-parti politik atau campuran parti-parti politik yang lain tidak berkemampuan mendapat suara majoriti dalam Dewan Undangan Negeri tersebut.
4. Dalam keadaan yang demikian kami memohon jasa baik Tun untuk, samada, mendapatkan perletakan jawatan Datuk Seri Joseph Pairin Kitingan selaku Ketua Menteri Sabah atau untuk membantu mengadakan suatu persidangan Dewan Undangan Negeri dengan segera dan mengarahkan Datuk Seri Joseph Pairin Kitingan untuk menghadapi suatu undi kepercayaan.
5. Jika Datuk Seri Joseph Pairin Kitingan enggan mematuhi salah satu arahan tersebut, kami dengan hormatnya memohon Tun melucutkan mandat beliau dan menjemput Tan Sri Haji Sakaran Dandai untuk membentuk sebuah Kerajaan yang baru.
6. Kami dengan hormatnya juga ingin merakamkan di sini perasaan penghargaan kami yang tidak terhingga di atas kepimpinan bijaksana dan ketabahan Tun dalam mempertahankan Perlembagaan.
Yang Ikhlas
(A list of 30 names with signatures)
Hakim bijaksana dalam kes tersebut juga membuat kesimpulan undang-undang berikut:
The fact of a Chief Minister ceasing to command the confidence of a majority of the members of the Assembly can be evidenced by various situations and circumstances. It can be through the knowledge of the Chief Minister himself from the surrounding circumstances or it can be through the actual voting in the Assembly by its members. The lists are not by any means exhaustive. There is no where in the Constitution to say that the only evidence of such fact must be through the actual vote in the Assembly.
2. Kami juga memohon memaklumkan Tun bahawa Barisan Nasional dan penyokong-penyokongnya sekarang menguasai majoriti di kalangan Ahli-Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri.
3. Oleh itu dengan segala hormatnya kami ingin menegaskan bahawa Datuk Seri Joseph Pairin Kitingan atau pemimpin-pemimpin dan parti-parti politik atau campuran parti-parti politik yang lain tidak berkemampuan mendapat suara majoriti dalam Dewan Undangan Negeri tersebut.
4. Dalam keadaan yang demikian kami memohon jasa baik Tun untuk, samada, mendapatkan perletakan jawatan Datuk Seri Joseph Pairin Kitingan selaku Ketua Menteri Sabah atau untuk membantu mengadakan suatu persidangan Dewan Undangan Negeri dengan segera dan mengarahkan Datuk Seri Joseph Pairin Kitingan untuk menghadapi suatu undi kepercayaan.
5. Jika Datuk Seri Joseph Pairin Kitingan enggan mematuhi salah satu arahan tersebut, kami dengan hormatnya memohon Tun melucutkan mandat beliau dan menjemput Tan Sri Haji Sakaran Dandai untuk membentuk sebuah Kerajaan yang baru.
6. Kami dengan hormatnya juga ingin merakamkan di sini perasaan penghargaan kami yang tidak terhingga di atas kepimpinan bijaksana dan ketabahan Tun dalam mempertahankan Perlembagaan.
Yang Ikhlas
(A list of 30 names with signatures)
Hakim bijaksana dalam kes tersebut juga membuat kesimpulan undang-undang berikut:
The fact of a Chief Minister ceasing to command the confidence of a majority of the members of the Assembly can be evidenced by various situations and circumstances. It can be through the knowledge of the Chief Minister himself from the surrounding circumstances or it can be through the actual voting in the Assembly by its members. The lists are not by any means exhaustive. There is no where in the Constitution to say that the only evidence of such fact must be through the actual vote in the Assembly.
PERSOALANNYA SEKARANG :
1. In the absence of "anti hopping laws" adakah kenyataan bahawa perubahan kerajaan dilaksanakan melalui "lompat parti" ianya tak sah dan tidak bermoral juga menyalahi undang-undang negara kita Malaysia?
2. Perlukah undi tidak percaya kepada Perdana Menteri dilakukan dalam Dewan Rakyat semasa sidang Parlimen dijalankan ataupun ianya boleh dilakukan melalui surat seperti apa yang terjadi di Sabah ini?
3. Adakah undang-undang kata dinegara ini mengatakan bahawa kalau lompat parti masuk BN, kes seumpama itu sahaja yang patut dilayan - kalau lompat masuk parti pembangkang, tak kira... jadi sebenarnya BN juga pernah "menternak Katak"?
Jadi bagaimana? kalau ikut cakap NABIL... ko balik pikirlah sendiri...
Al-Zaws
1. In the absence of "anti hopping laws" adakah kenyataan bahawa perubahan kerajaan dilaksanakan melalui "lompat parti" ianya tak sah dan tidak bermoral juga menyalahi undang-undang negara kita Malaysia?
2. Perlukah undi tidak percaya kepada Perdana Menteri dilakukan dalam Dewan Rakyat semasa sidang Parlimen dijalankan ataupun ianya boleh dilakukan melalui surat seperti apa yang terjadi di Sabah ini?
3. Adakah undang-undang kata dinegara ini mengatakan bahawa kalau lompat parti masuk BN, kes seumpama itu sahaja yang patut dilayan - kalau lompat masuk parti pembangkang, tak kira... jadi sebenarnya BN juga pernah "menternak Katak"?
Jadi bagaimana? kalau ikut cakap NABIL... ko balik pikirlah sendiri...
Al-Zaws
No comments:
Post a Comment