http://dapmalaysia.org  

Karpal's suspension most unconstitutional and undemocratic act in the recent history of Malaysian parliamentary democracy Press Statement by Chong Chieng Jen (Parliament, Wednesday): The passing of the motion to suspend Karpal Singh, the Chairman of DAP is the most unconstitutional and undemocratic act in the recent history of Malaysian parliamentary democracy.  The motion stemmed from a report prepared by the Committee of Privileges and tabled to the Dewan Rakyat as Kertas Dewan Rakyat No. DR 3 Tahun 2004.   The report is purportedly the findings of the Committee of Privileges on the conduct of Karpal Singh raising objection about MPs swearing in without raising their right hands and his reference to Statutory Declarations Act and Oaths and Affirmations Act to support his objection.  It is the finding of the Committee of Privileges that Karpal Singh, by doing so, misled the Dewan Rakyat.   An allegation of “misleading the Dewan Rakyat” is a very serious allegation as it involves an intention to mislead and the integrity of the person committing such act.  As such, rules of natural justice demands that the person accused of such act must be given a right to be heard before the inquiry body makes a finding.    In the case of Karpal, the inquiry body is the Committee of Privileges who was entrusted with the duty to investigate and make a finding of facts whether Karpal has any intention to mislead the Dewan Rakyat. In contravention to the rules of natural justice, the Committee made their finding that Karpal has the intention to mislead the Dewan Rakyat without calling Karpal to present his defence to the Committee.    The report was prepared by the Committee without first hearing Karpal’s defence.  It is a clear breach of the audi alteram partem rule, ie. a person cannot be judged before he was called on to make his defence.  Such basic legal maxim has repeatedly been held by our courts of law to be the law in Malaysia. It has been held by our courts that the principle of audi alteram partem rule is encompassed in the Federal Constitution and is directed at giving a citizen the minimum standards of fairness in all forms of action by government authorities.  It was even commented by a Federal Court judge that such rule is so entrenched in the spirit of justice that God Himself did not pass sentence on Adam before he was called on to make his defence.   Without a doubt, under our legal system, any finding of an inquiry body arrived at in breach of the audi alteram partem rule is null and void, likewise the report of the Committee of Privileges which was prepared before hearing the defence of Karpal. It thus makes a mockery of the whole proceedings to approve a “null and void” report tabled by the Committee.   Secondly, there is no basis and reasons provided by the Committee to support their findings that Karpal is guilty as alleged.  Such requirement for reasons to support their findings is particularly important in this case because from the minutes of meetings held by the Committee, it is clear that all the members of the Committee were of the view that Karpal did not intend to mislead the Dewan Rakyat.  Why is there a sudden change of view of all members of the Committee except YB Chong Eng? This throws doubt on the integrity and accuracy of the whole report.   Thirdly, when the motion to accept the report was moved by the Minister, there was so little time set aside for debate.  There is an air in the Dewan that there is no need to debate on the motion because it will be carried through anyway. A majority of the Barisan Nasional members of Parliament could not even be bothered to be present to hear out the debate.  It is a typical case of minds being made up long before the hearing, a most unjust scenario in any legal system.  It is also a classic case to show how a ninety percent majority can bulldoze and bully the minority without any sense of justice and fair-play.   A great injustice has been done on Karpal, a travesty of justice has occurred and it will remain as a stigma in the history of our parliamentary democracy.  This puts shame to the call by the Prime Minister to have a 1st World Parliament.    As regards the proviso in the report for an apology to be made by Karpal, it is also the DAPSY’s view that the issue of apology does not arise.  Karpal may have misquoted an Act in the Dewan, but a mistake in quoting a wrong Act is a far cry from misleading.  An allegation of “mislead” contains an intention to mislead.  In Karpal’s case, there is clearly no intention to mislead the Dewan. Minutes of the Committee’s meeting showed that even the members of the Committee were of the view that Karpal did not intend to mislead the Dewan by quoting the wrong Act.   The report demands that Karpal apologise for having misled the Dewan, not simply for quoting the wrong Act.  As Karpal has never misled the Dewan, as a matter of principle, he cannot apologise for what he has not done.   The National DAPSY fully supports Karpal on his decision to refuse to apologise for something that he has not done.   (8/9/2004) * Chong Chieng Jen, DAPSY National Vice Chairman, MP for Bandar Kuching