UPP: Key substantive issues not addressed
KUCHING: United People’s Party ( UPP) is of the view that the High Court has not made any decision on the substantive issues pertaining to Pujut assemblyman Dr Ting Tiong Choon, who was once in possession of Australian citizenship, and its implications.
“The High Court did not decide on the substantive issue whether Dr Ting is disqualified from being a member of the (State Legislative Assembly) DUN when he had taken Australian citizenship, signed a Pledge of Allegiance to Australia or exercised rights as an Australian citizen.
“In the same way that the election petition by Dato Hii King Chiong was dismissed on a technicality, the High Court also set aside the DUN decision on jurisdictional and procedural grounds.
“In neither case has the key substantive issues been determined by the Court,” said UPP in a statement.
The statement further pointed out that the Ministerial Motion tabled in the DUN to disqualify Dr Ting was based on three substantive issues – that Dr Ting took Australian citizenship; that Dr Ting signed a Pledge of Allegiance to Australia; that Dr Ting exercised rights as an Australian citizen by being placed on the electoral roll in Australia to vote in Australian elections.
“During the DUN sitting, Dr Ting avoided addressing the above three issues despite being asked several times about them.
“After the DUN sitting, Dr Ting admitted to taking Australian citizenship which he said he renounced just before nomination day in the last state election,” the statement read.
The statement further noted that Article 17(1)(g) of the Sarawak Constitution disqualifies a person from being a member of DUN if that person has taken foreign citizenship, pledged allegiance to a foreign country or exercised rights of a foreign citizen, adding there is no proviso that a subsequent renunciation of foreign citizenship will be an answer to disqualification.
“The recent High Court decision centred upon the jurisdiction of the DUN to decide on disqualification of Dr Ting. The Court held that the DUN had no such jurisdiction and only the Election Court had the power to decide.
“The High Court also focused on procedural issues like whether Dr Ting was deprived of the time and opportunity to defend himself in the DUN sitting and whether the Speaker was impartial,” said UPP.
On June 17, High Court Judge Datuk Douglas Christo Primus Sikayun ruled in favour of Dr Ting, thus reinstating him as Pujut assemblyman.
In making his ruling, the judge said the DUN was not a competent forum to disqualify any of its members, and that only the Election Court could decide on the membership status of any assemblyman as provided for under Article 118 of the Federal Constitution.
Douglas also found that Asfia had failed to apply the rule of natural justice when dismissing Dr Ting during the May 12 DUN sitting, apart from failing to provide him ample time to prepare his defence before a motion to disqualify him was tabled.
The High Court also said that Asfia had failed to take into account the interest of the 8,899 voters who voted for Dr Ting during the state election last year.
Wong had tabled the Ministerial Motion to disqualify Dr Ting for allegedly acquiring Australian citizenship in 2010. The EC previously announced a byelection for Pujut on July 4, but cancelled it following the court’s decision last Friday (June 17).
The High Court did not decide on the substantive issue whether Dr Ting is disqualified from being a member of the (State Legislative Assembly) DUN when he had taken Australian citizenship, signed a Pledge of Allegiance to Australia or exercised rights as an Australian citizen. UPP in a statement