`


THERE IS NO GOD EXCEPT ALLAH
read:
MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku

LOVE MALAYSIA!!!


 


Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Was there need for Pandikar to inform PM of resignation?

Image result for Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia (“Pandikar”) decided to resign as speaker.

Our Speaker of Parliament, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia (“Pandikar”) decided to resign as speaker.
He wrote a resignation letter and passed it to the prime minister (“PM”). The PM refuses to accept it, convinced Pandikar to stay on, and kapish! Pandikar decides to retract his resignation! So let’s take a step back, is there really a need to send a letter to the PM?
Resigning as speaker
All right, for starters, the letter must be addressed to the clerk of the house of representatives, not the PM. In fact, nowhere does it mention that he needs to communicate it to the PM.
Next, what does the word “addressed” entail? Must the letter have been received? Is it sufficient if the letter was written and despatched? Must there be an acceptance on part of the clerk?
There is no proper precedent here on how the word “addressed” is to be applied. It is useful to look to India, which is the primary source of reference for the development of constitutional law in Malaysia.
Examples in India
India has a similar provision under Article 94 of its constitution, the difference being that the letter must be addressed to the deputy speaker, for the resignation of the speaker, and the reverse for the deputy speaker. There are two occasions in which the term “addressed” was applied.
On March 7, 1956, M.A. Ayyangar resigned as deputy speaker of the Lok Sabha (lower house of Indian Parliament). The position of speaker at that time was vacant. For his resignation to be complete, it was sufficient for him to have addressed the letter to the speaker and to have sent it to the office of the speaker. There was no need for an acceptance.
A better example was the intended resignation of G. Laskhmanan as deputy speaker of the Lok Sabha. He sent his resignation letter on June 25, 1983 to the speaker.
The speaker’s office only received it on June 29, 1983. However, on June 27, 1983, he sent another letter retracting his resignation.
The matter was referred to the legal department for a legal opinion on the legality of his retraction. Ultimately, it was concluded that the world “addressed” entails that it would be insufficient if the letter is put in the course of transmission.
It is only complete when the speaker receives the resignation letter, which in this case was date of receipt on the registered post, i.e. June 29. Therefore G. Lakshmanan’s resignation was inchoate and his retraction was valid.
Ultimately, all that is needed is for the letter to have been received. There is no need for a form of acceptance, or in other words, there is no room for a rejection.
Conclusion
Pandikar seemed to have adopted this position as well when he was reported as having said, “There is no need for others to announce that the speaker has resigned. If the prime minister won't accept my resignation, I myself can announce it”.
Therefore, there is really no need for any form of notification to the PM. Perhaps it is done as a matter of convention or tradition. All that is needed is a resignation letter addressed to the clerk and sent to him. If at all Pandikar wishes to resign again, there is nothing the PM can do to stop him.
* Surendra Ananth reads The Malaysian Insider.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.