Isn’t it seems to be a joke? Is it the Court trying to be hilarious? Or is it the Court is having a great problem with the interpretation of Article 72 of Perak Constitution?
I personally didn’t see any consistency of the Court when the Court ruled in the case of Sivakumar v Ganesan ( the SPEAKER of Perak versus speaker of perak). One doctrine can be used against and for. But from what I observed, the ‘against’ is always the Pakatan Rakyat while the ‘for’ is always the Barisan Nasional.
When Pakatan Rakyat pleaded under the Article, the Court never bother to look at it and failed to observe that Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. But while the Pakatan was trying to go against Barisan, the Court applied the Article then and now come the doctrine of Separation of Power. Is this called double standard? Well, weigh it by your own.
The Judiciary is the Last Protection for us, people when our rights are being infringed. But imagine when this kind of Judiciary came into picture, who then going to protect the people? If the Court cannot be entrusted by the people, the people lost their Last Protection and the Judiciary loses its function.
Good post (i didnt realise you can write political article also), u may consider send this post to malaysiakini or elsewhere, can help to promote ur blog also!
ReplyDeleteang, this is my attempt to write political article also... btw, i dunno how to send the post to malaysiakini... teach me. teach me. i ll try to write more articles...
ReplyDelete