The Hassan Gani Pengiran Amir Decision. But Where Are The People Who Care For The Rule Of Law?

Please click here.

realpolitikasia 

Agreement in support .. may be deemed unlawful given High Court decision in Hassan Gani Pengiran Amir’s case - .. party leaders cannot ignore decision that may bind even the Agong

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

 

"The agreement seems likely to offend the decision in the matter  of Sabah state assemblyman Hassan Gani Pengiran Amir where  Mr Justice  Wong Siong Tung held:   “An elected member of legislature should be free to act according to the best of his or her ability and his independent judgement should not be legally constrained by obligations to either his party or to the electorate or subject to the dictates of anybody." 

 

My Comments :

"and his independent judgement should not be legally constrained by obligations to either his party or to the electorate or subject to the dictates of anybody"

Really? So how? Now Anti Hopping Law says the party leader can decide for all the MPs in his party.  And if an MP does not toe the line of his party (aka the line drawn by the party leader) then the said MP can be stripped of his Parliamentary seat and there will be a by election.

But what exactly does it mean, legally in a Court of law, to toe the party line?

Imagine the following situation - say a party leader quits from the party, is found guilty of some crime and is sent off to jail, drops dead of a heart attack or is sucked up by aliens. This means the party has no leader. The party quickly convenes a meeting to choose a new leader. Say the process takes two months. 

In the meantime a Vote of Confidence in the prime minister comes up in Parliament.  Half the party's MPs vote against the prime minister. The other half vote for the prime minister.  

So how? Which half of the MPs will or should be stripped of their Parliamentary seats?

According to Mr Justice  Wong Siong Tung's understanding of the law in the case of  Hassan Gani Pengiran Amir (do read Ganesh Sahathevan's article above) an elected representative  should not be legally constrained by obligations to either his party or to the electorate or subject to the dictates of anybody". 

I agree fully. Otherwise why even bother to elect so many Members of Parliament. Just elect one fellow ie the party president as the rep for EVERY CONSTITUENCY and then let him decide how to vote FOR THE ENTIRE PARTY in Parliament.

We are in the nuthouse.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.