==> Pls visit new site at http://malaysia-today.net/ <==

This is what you call a 'loophole' in the human made laws. Humans made them, and shall bypass them.

Representing oneself is a fundamental right of law. Irrespective if you choose to represent yourself in person or another person does that for you. Even if yourself or that person is not learnt in law, it is a given right. There are already precendents and decided cases on this.

To go for the mole dot of representation is to stretch the rakyat's patience too far. Just give that Sivakumar the choice of whatever way he wants to be represented and get on with the material substance of the case.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 9

This shall give a stronger shudder down ordinary rakyat's spines. Know that when it is your turn in court for whatever reason you won't have justice on your side. Law is made to be bent. Lawyers are meant to lie and squeeze every penny from the system.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 5

RidWan Ibrahim you are an useless prick. Just save what ever whatever left in you and quit. Perak people have suffered enough already without pricks like you making it even worse!

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 12

Dear Sivakumar, just tell the Court you want to appear on behalf of yourself because you have been deprived of your choice of counsel. This is allowed by the Court, even though it is not encouraged. You can still get legal advice from Tommy Thomas or anyone you like outside the Court. At least you can avoid the State Legal Advisor to self-appoint himself as your backstabbing counsel.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 11

Listen to NH CHAN: (The arrogance of a novice judge)

You cannot judge a judge unless you know the basic law yourself. But you do not have to worry because I shall now provide you with the law applicable so that you are in a position to judge the judge.

You may be surprised at your own ability after you have read this. You might think that even a layman, after reading the applicable law, knows what is the right decision to make. And when a judge does not know the correct answer, it makes you wonder how such a thing could have happened.

I shall start with section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956. I have highlighted the important words for easier reading. Sub-sections (1) reads:
“(1) Notwithstanding any written law -

(a) in civil proceedings by or against the Federal Government...
(b) in civil proceedings by or against the Government of a State, a law officer ... authorised by the Legal Adviser of such State ... may appear as advocate on behalf of such Government...”.
As you can see, this sub-section is not relevant as it only applies to civil suits brought by or against the state government, not a public officer.

And sub-section (2), which is relevant on the subject of discussion, reads:
“(2) Notwithstanding any written law in civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party -

(a) by virtue of his office; or
(b) in his personal capacity, if the Attorney-General certifies in writing that it is in the public interest that such officer should be represented by a legal officer; a legal officer may appear as advocate on behalf of such officer...”.

This sub-section only applies to civil suits brought by or against a public officer. In such a case, a public officer may (the word is 'may' not 'must') be represented by a legal officer which could include the legal adviser of the state.

Therefore, there is nothing in section 24 (2) of the Government Proceedings Act to suggest that a public officer if he sues or if he is sued must be represented by a legal officer such as the state legal officer.

In any case, section 24 (2) of the Government Proceedings Act only applies to civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party. Therefore, the question is, does the speaker of the Legislative Assembly of a state hold office as a member of the public service? If he does, then he is a public officer.

Article 132, Clause (3) of the Federal Constitution states that:
“(3) The public service shall not be taken to comprise -

(b) the office of President, Speaker, Deputy President, Deputy Speaker or member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly of a State.”

So now you know that the speaker and the members of the Legislative Assembly of a state are not part of the public service as they do not hold office as public officers. Therefore, section 24 (2) of the Government Proceedings Act does not apply to them.

Now we all know, except the judge because he thought he knew better, that Thomas could not be prevented to appear for the speaker Sivakumar. If only he had heard Thomas out, instead of barring him from speaking, he would not have made such a grave error.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 7

The Judiciary Commissioner have to go for a refresh course under the honourable N.H.Chan, where he can learn what is his real job is. How come we can have this type morons as High Court Judiciary Commissioners. In Malaysia everything is possible.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 3