Is the law to be used as a weapon?
The Perak Example:
1. 3 dubious PR ADUNs reaking of coercion become independents but "hop-over" as a term is used even by the highest levels of the Federal Government in its media responses. "Hop-over" because they can shift the balance of power in the Legislative Assembly. "Hop-over" because technically they have the law on their side and besides, Anwar started it all with the September 16th plan, which resulted in some MPs receiving a free agriculture field trip to Taiwan in the heat of Ramadan. Thus, the ability to hop-over and shift the balance of power, a prospect akin to the attraction of power and wealth, of which the human ego shall falter. The law here does not forbid party hopping. As such, it can be used as a powerful political, and therefore socio-economic weapon of immense degrees. The PR state government knowing that it was about to fall decided to use the law as a weapon to get the Sultan to dissolve the Assembly and have fresh elections.
2. In the meantime, the BN Perak chief made a beeline to the palace and the Sultan did his duty within the ambit of the law and after due inquiry declared that the current MB from PAS resign and tender the resignation of his Exco. The due inquiry in the Palace need not have been on the floor of the Assembly as much as the "Assembly under the Tree" did not have to take place in the Assembly. The inference of the word "confidence of the MEMBERS of the Legislative Assembly" within the Federal Constitution is not echoed by the State Constitution that prefers "confidence of the Legislative Assembly". As such, the non-provisioning of actual space and ceremony in the law to accompany a Legislative Assembly except Royal Assent and Standing Orders, makes it absolutely alright for the Sultan to hold inquiry in the palace and PR members to meet under a tree. Sure, there was no Royal Assent for the meeting under the tree, but then again, the last meeting was in fact adjourned. Here, the law is again used as a weapon by both sides of the divide. It appears that what may be legal can in fact be unpopular, and immoral.
3. UMNO lawyers roughshod the necessity of a vote of no-confidence at the Assembly and performs a coup. The power of the Sultan to appoint an MB was inferred to also mean a power to dismiss. This was however not the preferred view following the Stephen Kalong Ningkan case and the case of Tajol Rosli's father where a member of the Kutom took this view in advising the then Sultan. This put the Sultan in a tight fix as far as public perception went and prompted a response from the palace, saying it could not engage in political discourse and was above politics. UMNO should have taken a vote on the floor to oust Nizar and avoid embarassing the Sultan, a patron of the legal fraternity, but alas, before they could do so, the Speaker from PR, using the law as a weapon, suspended Zambry and his six appopinted exco members from sitting in the Assembly. The Assembly now could not oust Nizar through a vote of no confidence and neither would he tender his resignation to the Dewan as UMNO/BN did not have the numbers.PR used the law as a weapon to avoid executing the Sultan's orders, which was in fact occassioned by UMNO's mistake in not calling a vote of no confidence early. However, this proved too difficult as the Speaker was from PR and was not about to budge.
4. DAP then used the law as a weapon again when they called for an emergency Assembly under the tree as the Speaker was well within his powers to ratify the suspension of the BN assemblymen by passing a vote then. The BN tormented, took the case to the Federal Court that again shocked many when it encroached on the enshrined doctrine of the separation of powers. Nevertheless, the BN used the law as a weapon to declare that the Speaker could not suspend the BN assemblymen and that the "hoppers" are still assemblymen (some may argue on the term hoppers because for all intents and purposes they are independents voting with BN). Still, the Speakers actions had been passed by a "deemed" majority of members under the tree.
5. BN then called for a another sitting with Royal Assent where they dragged the Speaker of his chair and wrongfully detained him, controversially took control of the Speakers position to nullify the previous sitting under the tree, oust Nizar and affirm Zambry. BN used the law as a weapon when it took advantage of the Standing Orders giving the MB a right to move an emergency motion without the Speaker's assent, in order to remove the Speaker. The fact that the law didn't say whether the Speaker had to come from members of the Assembly was further capitalized by the BN so that they could maintain their voting numbers.
6. This blame-game went on until the High Court ruled that Nizar was the rightful MB all along and Zambry was an usurper. Thus, Zambry & Co. could not have uplifted their suspension from Assembly, and they would have not been able to call an Assembly without the Sultan so asking for it, nor tabling an emergency motion to remove the Speaker through the Deputy Speaker, more so when the Speaker was occasioned by trespass and wrongfully detained. This judgement was the perfect opportunity to render the weapon back to PR to request the Sultan for dissolution and call for elections. It also takes us back to point 3 above thus effectively cancelling out all the numerous drama and events up to this point.
7. The next day, the BN using the law as their weapon win an appeal for a stay order of the High Court judgement effectively freezing events but not returning parties to status quo. BN uses the stay order again as a means to retain power but in effect, both sides return to the situation in point 3 above. PR then appeals against the stay order and is to be heard on the same day as the appeal that allowed the stay order in the first place.
8. The PM then says its up to the Sultan to dissolve the Assembly to pave the way for elections, and here again, the BN uses the law to shift blame from itself, place the brunt of anger and burden on the institution of the Sultanate, and to distance himself from the situation. The Sultan here can also now use the law as his own personal weapon to be the ultimate kingmaker for the Legislative and the Executive. However, public opinion is that the BN is using this law for the palace to be more assertive towards BN. In all fairness, the Sultan's actions is so far unknown and has only been speculated upon.
9. Who will use the law as a weapon next remains to be seen, because everytime political parties wield this weapon, the rakyat bleeds.
On another note, I personally condemn parties that have used subjective laws as a weapon, that has caused the recent mass incarceration, obstruction of duties under law, wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, of fellow officers of the court in their duty prescribed by rule of law towards legal representation of persons guaranteed and safeguarded by the Constitution. This is indeed a travesty of justice. The Constitution is to be respected and safeguarded. The first written Constitution in the world came from Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.), the lantern of souls.
The conclusion that I can make is that whenever the law is used as a weapon, it becomes a double-edged sword and as the saying goes..."senjata makan tuan". One law however seems to be in operation all around, Murphy's Law.