revocation的八卦，Yahoo名人娛樂都在討論

只睇7.1嘅表面或者單一現象，將香港年輕人判斷並報道為暴徒係太盲目，不成熟嘅做法(日文後ろ By Soko)

究竟咩嘢推到佢地咁樣嘅地步？咩嘢逼到佢地自殺，變成死士？其憤怒，絕望之根源係咩嘢，萬惡之源究竟係邊，要正視，要探討，要深思。

7月1日香港の若者たちが立法議会に突撃した行為が様々な議論を醸し出しています。
...Continue ReadingIt is too blind and immature to judge and report the young people in Hong Kong as thugs (After Japanese)

What exactly has pushed them like this? What forced them to commit suicide and become a dead man? What is the root of anger and despair? The source of all evil lies, we should face it, explore and think deeply.

July 1th, the acts that young people in Hong Kong have attacked the legislative assembly are creating various discussions.

Many Hong Kong youth and citizens are dissatisfied with the fact that multiple media in Japan wrote a mob of Hong Kong young people or mob.

What is in the root of Hong Kong Youth's anger?

According to a social worker who was at the site on July 1th, there were 1 young people who were prepared to act on death.

Democratic lawmakers are going to jail, they might be shot by gun, reconsider! I tried to stop, but," already three (suicide) Dead! I don't even know what to say! I'm ready for the assault!"

In the process of temporary occupation from the assault to the legislative assembly, there was an act of writing a slogan to beat the window, break the equipment, and criticize the government on the wall. It may probably not be the act that many democratic people wanted.

There will also be an excuse to suppress the parents of the parents, and there will also be a union that tries to take advantage of the actions of young people, and it will also be an element that will be suspected of the nature of the demonstration that has been moving on to the back of peace. No, the foreign media and international public opinion that will support you can also be away...

There was a destruction of windows, equipment, and the slogan of political criticism to the wall, but for the historical and cultural value, " don't destroy this!" There was also a side of paying money without being protected or drinking at the legislative assembly. Therefore, it does not mean that the vandalism is allowed. I'm going to tell you that there was a side like that too. The subject of vandalism was not a person but a thing consistent with things.

Various discussions are winding up on July 1th. I think I need to take a look at what is the base of Hong Kong's youth, anger, and despair, without being left alone in the video and superficial events.

June 9th 100 million demonstrations will be held. Mr. Lam, the top secretary of Hong Kong, is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the After that, I've been watching three watarai on the media for 10 days and 11 days, but I don't listen to opinion just by claiming the legitimacy of the fugitive ordinance.

In the morning of June 12th, in the tv interview, the ordinance will never withdraw, and the mother, the young man of Hong Kong, to the son," comment that I can't forgive the selfish act of my son," This is how the mother of Hong Kong was angry that the mother of Hong Kong did not deserve to name you, and in Hong Kong, the protest assembly of the unprecedented mothers was held.

When the democratic party announces a statement to rum and the government who continue to ignore the request of opinion, and the democratic party announces the statement, Mr. Lam takes out an example of the determination that has happened in the past years, and he is severely punished. Intimidated the young man.

For a series of response such as the lamb administration, citizens are disappointed, and the government who does not listen to what they say, if this ordinance has been passed to such a government, what is the security of our freedom and safety? It's going to be... fear and worries are getting more and more bloated.

The only way left was to enter the legislative assembly at the time of the second deliberation of the 12th, and to disrupt the deliberation and stop the pass, this day the police squad and the demonstrators collided hard, and the video was also The clearly captured police force was accused of violence, but the government did not follow police violence, and the people's demonstrations were defined as riot, and 32 people were arrested. My name has become a riot sin.

After that, while police assault was severely criticized by the international society, the g20 that was taken by xi jinping was imminent, and the government said that the government will stop the deliberation of the ordinance. In Japan, some media have been featured in the fact that some media have expressed the revocation of the facts, and the voices of the people and the voices of praise have risen, but the citizens of Hong Kong are not suspended = they are not withdraw, and there is a possibility that they will resume in the future. And above all, I understand the fear of the government that has not been able to stay in the middle of a hard posture that has been ignoring opinion for a long time.

And 200 million + 1 demonstrations happen. The screams of Hong Kong people have arrived in the whole world. This is what the rum administration did in the form of an apology conference as a pose, but the citizens were not able to do it, but the lamb administration did not try to listen to the citizens's demands. I did.

On July 1, the demonstrators requested an emergency meeting to the secretary of rum, but it was rejected by Mr. Lam for the reason that he was busy.

In the conflict between citizens and governments by today, the despair of young people in Hong Kong went to I, the one who chose to die (three people), or the people who were prepared to act with the death of the death. (the young man who entered the legislative assembly), what is the root of the evil that is like this, the anger and despair of this kind of anger and despair? On the essential main axis, I think that the government has been stepping on the opinion, not listening to the voice of the young people, without respect, and continuing to trampled until today.

Anger is beyond the limit, despair, and the thoughts of the young people who are going to be in the middle of the day, the thoughts of the young people who are in the middle of the day, without listening to the voice, without seeing what is behind it, the radical footage and single I think it's a very short-cut judgement to see only the events and easily put it on the mob.

What is in the back of their despair and anger, I think they need to look at what they have made them.

I'm not going to defend the destructive act, but the wrath of the young people is in the middle of the day, and there are millions of people who have gathered in peace, and when they are disbanded in peace, what will be! Citizen's opinion and democracy are just the same as the government is trampled by the government, the anger of the young people who are desperate for the adults who do not listen to the story, the feeling that explodes, and the dangers of life, but action I want to be able to understand the courage to wake up, and I want to support the future of their drawing.

There is a survey that the parent-Chinese media [economic ung] and [CLEAR NEWS] went together." while the demonstration was sustainable, the demonstrators destroyed the legislative Congress on the 1th, so i sue this Can you agree with the way?" 214,634 people answer and agree at 8 pm last night %, don't agree but 9 %, no comment Is 10 %.

It is said that the intention of the survey of the parent-Chinese media should have been a government support, and it should have been a good idea to suppress the demonstration, but the intention is edge, and the result of most citizens supporting the demonstrators. It's been embossed.

During the collision on June 12, there was a radical action of throwing bricks in a few demonstrators, but today there was no other human attack, and the demonstration was held in peace. . The vandalism in the row of July 1th was not a person, but it was against the stuff.

As A Supplement, I think that the installation of the independent investigation committee is a fair measure for both of the violence in a series of demonstrations. With a fair third party, you should check it out, democracy is also demanding it to the government. However, the government continues to refuse the installation of the independent investigation committee. For some reason it's obvious, because government and police brutality are exposed to the light of the international society.

I'm going to investigate in the agency called the existing Deputy Council, but the general council is not legally guaranteed to summon the investigation rights and witnesses to the court, and half of the members of the council committee. More than a parent. The Police are going to investigate the police, and we have to set up the independent investigation committee, and we continue to voice the opposite of the investigation at the general council, but we continue to be rejected today. Yes.

Article: @[699908786774332:274:SOKO hé quán sù xíng]Translated

Luke de Pulford 來左香港(國際觀察團其中一員)，佢啱啱去同 #何君堯講:
喂你 #冇左榮譽博士學位, 係我做的🤣 (內有片)
//Very good to take some time@our from election observation to tell #JuniusHo in person that I was responsible for the revocation of his honorary doctorate from@AngliaRuskin #Sorrynotsorry https://t.co/3y2TdWgbfS
https://twitter.com/lukedepulfo…/status/1198462935804370947…

APAKAH DARURAT

Oleh :
Prof Madya Dr Shamrahayu A.Aziz

Soalan 1

Apakah maksud darurat

Jawapan:

Darurat maksudnya suatu keadaan berkaitan keselamatan, ekonomi dan ketenteraman awam yang tidak dapat dikawal melalui sistem pentadbiran biasa. Pengisytiharan darurat adalah suatu pemasyhuran yang dibuat oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong melalui suatu pewartaan bahawa keadaan tersebut telah wujud atau hampir berlaku.

Soalan 2

Apakah kesan pengisytiharan darurat

Jawapan:

Kesan umum pengisytiharan darurat ialah, Perlembagaan digantung dan pentadbiran negara adalah ditentukan oleh pihak eksekutif. Tentera juga boleh mengambil alih teraju dalam hal berkaitan keselamatan sekiranya keadaan memerlukan, lebih-lebih lagi apabila darurat diisytiharkan kerana berlakunya ancaman kepada keselamatan negara. Parlimen masih boleh bersidang sekiranya tidak dibubarkan.

Ketika proklamasi darurat berkuat kuasa, kuasa eksekutif Persekutuan adalah juga meliputi semua perkara dalam kuasa perundangan Negeri dan memberi arahan kepada kerajaan negeri atau mana-mana pegawai atau pihak berkuasa Negeri. (Perkara 150(4)).

Kesan lain, dari segi pentadbiran dan perundangan dibincangkan dalam jawapan kepada soalan seterusnya.

Soalan 3

Adakah pengisytiharan darurat dibenarkan oleh Perlembagaan

Jawapan:

Ya. Perlembagaan membenarkan pengisytiharan darurat melalui Perkara 150 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Perkara 150 adalah satu daripada tiga peruntukan yang berada di bawah Bahagian XI Perlembagaan Persekutuan, iaitu Bahagian berkaitan Kuasa Khas Menentang Perbuatan Subversif, Keganasan Terancang, Dan Perbuatan Dan Jenayah Yang Memudaratkan Orang Awam Dan Kuasa Darurat.

Bahagian XI ini membenarkan undang-undang bagi tujuan pencegahan dibuat, termasuklah tahanan pencegahan bagi tujuan menangani keadaan darurat.

Soalan 4

Apakah yang membolehkan Yang di-Pertuan Agong membuat pengisytiharan darurat

Jawapan:

Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh mengisytiharkan darurat di bawah Per 150(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan jika darurat besar kepada keselamatan atau kehidupan ekonomi atau ketenteraman awam dalam Persekutuan atau mana-mana bahagiannya (TELAH) wujud.

Di bawah Perkara 150(2), Yang di-Pertuan Agong juga boleh membuat proklamasi darurat sekiranya baginda berpuas hati ancaman darurat besar, atas sebab keselamatan negara, atau kehidupan ekonomi atau ketenteraman awam HAMPIR BENAR berlaku.

Tiga asas atau alasan boleh digunakan oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong bagi membuat pengisytiharan darurat, iaitu, ancaman ke atas

i. Keselamatan negara; atau

ii. Kehidupan ekonomi; atau

iii. Ketenteraman awam

Soalan 5

Bilakah dan di manakah darurat boleh diisytiharkan

Jawapan:

Darurat boleh diisytiharkan oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong pada bila-bila masa, sama semasa Parlimen masih ada, sedang bersidang atau pun tidak, atau juga semasa Parlimen bubar. Syarat yang diperlukan ialah, telah dibuktikan elemen yang dinyatakan, iaitu ancaman atau darurat atas keselamatan, kehidupan ekonomi atau ketenteraman awam telah atau hampir benar berlaku.

Darurat boleh diisytihar atas seluruh Persekutuan atau mana-mana bahagian dalam Persekutuan. Perkara 150(1) dan (2).

Soalan 6

Adakah Yang di-Pertuan Agong membuat pengisytiharan darurat atas kuasanya sendiri atau atas nasihat Perdana Menteri

Jawapan:

Pegisytiharan darurat ialah kuasa prerogatif Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Kuasa prerogatif ringkasnya bermaksud kuasa yang dimiliki oleh institusi beraja dari awal bahkan jauh sebelum gubalan Perlembagaan Persekutuan bagi Tanah Melayu (Malaysia). Kuasa tersebut kekal dalam milik institusi beraja. Bagaiamana pun, persoalan timbul ialah, adakah kuasa prerogatif tersebut dilaksanakan secara budi bicara atau atas nasihat Perdana Menteri?

Perkara 150(1) menyatakan “Jika Yang di-Pertuan Agong berpuas hati bahawa suatu darurat besar sedang berlaku yang menyebabkan keselamatan, atau kehidupan ekonomi, atau ketenteraman awam di dalam Persekutuan atau mana-mana bahagiannya terancam, maka Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh mengeluarkan suatu Proklamasi Darurat dengan membuat dalamnya suatu perisytiharan yang bermaksud sedemikian”.

Frasa “Jika Yang di-Pertuan Agong berpuas hati” atau dalam Bahasa Inggeris, “if the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is satisfied” menjadi persoalan, adakah puas hati Yang di-Pertuan Agong seorang diri (as sole judge) atau atas nasihat.

Beberapa keputusan kes telah membuat pernyataan tentang perkara ini.

Kes Stephen kalong Ningkan (No.2) (tahun 1968) menyatakan bahawa Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh mengisytiharkan darurat sekiranya baginda berpuas hati. Barakbah Lord President, dalam keputusan majoriti menyatakan “….In my opinion the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is the sole judge…”

Walaubagaimana pun, keputusan kes Teh Cheng Poh oleh Privy Council pada tahun 1979 menyatakan tindakan Yang di-Pertuan Agong adalah atas nasihat Jemaah Menteri. Ini adalah kedudukan undang-undang yang disepakati. Lord Diplock menyatakan:

“Although this, like other powers under the Constitution, is conferred nominally upon the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by virtue of his office as the Supreme Head of the Federation and is expressed to exercisable if he is satisfied of a particular matter, his functions are those of a constitutional monarch and except on certain matters that do not concern the instant appeal, he does not exercise any of his functions under the Constitution on his own initiative but is required by Article 40(1) to act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet. So when one finds in the Constitution itself or in a Federal law powers conferred upon the Yang di-Pertuan Agong that are expressed to be exercisable if he is of opinion or is satisfied that a particular state of affair exists or that particular action is necessary, the reference to his opinion or satisfaction is in reality a reference to the collective opinion or satisfaction of the members of the Cabinet, or the opinion or satisfaction of a particular Minister to whom the Cabinet have delegated their authority to give advice upon the matter in question”.

Justeru, menerusi keputusan kes Teh Cheng Poh ini, pengisytiharan darurat oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong perlu dibuat atas nasihat Perdana Menteri, atau Jemaah Menteri, atau seorang Menteri yang diberikan kuasa oleh Jemaah Menteri.

Soalan 7

Adakah Keputusan Yang di-Pertuan Agong untuk mengisytihar darurat dan membuat Ordinan semasa darurat boleh dipersoalkan (justiciable)

Jawapan:

Keputusan kes Stephen kalong Ningkan (No.2) secara nyata Barakbah Lord President, dalam keputusan majoriti menyatakan “….In my opinion the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is the sole judge and once His Majesty is satisfied that a state of emergency exists, it is not for the court to inquire as to whether of not he should have been satisfied”. Maksudnya, menurut Ketua Hakim Barakbah, mahkamah tidak boleh mempersoalkan tindakan Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

Pandangan majoriti ini disanggah oleh Ong Hock Thye, Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan, dalam penghakiman sama. Hakim Ong Hock Thye menyatakan pandangan minoriti. Beliau menyatakan,

“His Majesty is not an autocratic ruler since Article 40(1) of the Federal Constitution provides that “in the exercise of his function under this Constitution or federal law the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet…Article 150 specifically provide that the emergency must be one ‘whereby the security or economic life of the Federation or any part thereof is threatened.. If those words of limitation are not meaningless verbiage….Article 150 does not confer on the Cabinet an untrammeled discretion to cause an emergency to be declared at their mere whim and fancy”

Maksudnya, Yang di-Pertuan Agong bukan memerintah secara autokratik kerana baginda bertindak atas nasihat. Dalam pelaksanaan kuasa baginda, mahkamah boleh memeriksa keputusan yang dibuat oleh baginda dan juga Jemaah Menteri ketika membuat proklamasi darurat supaya ia terhad kepada keadaan yang disebut, iaitu keselamatan negara dan kehidupan ekonomi. Perkara 150 tidak memberikan kuasa budi bicara yang tidak teratur.

Keputusan Teh Cheng Poh, seperti yang dipetik di atas adalah juga menyatakan tindakan Yang di-Pertuan Agong di bawah Perkara 150 boleh disemak oleh mahkamah. Selepas keputusan kes Teh Cheng Poh seperti yang dipetik di atas, Perlembagaan Persekutuan telah dipinda dengan memasukkan peruntukan yang secara jelas TIDAK membenarkan mahkamah menyemak keputusan Yang di-Pertuan Agong, atau apa-apa tindakan yang dibuat oleh baginda berkenaan kuasa, fungsi dan peranan di bawah Perkara 150. Hal ini terdapat pada Perkara 150(8) yang menyatakan:

Walau apa pun apa-apa jua dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan ini –

(a) hal puas hati Yang di-Pertuan Agong yang disebut Fasal (1) dan Fasal (2B) adalah muktamad dan konklusif dan tidaklah boleh dicabar atau dipersoalkan di dalam mana-mana mahkamah atas apa-apa alasan; dan

(b) tiada mahkamah boleh mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk melayan atau memutuskan apa-apa permohonan, soal atau prosiding, dalam apa-apa jua bentuk, atas apa-apa alasan, mengenai kesahan

(i) sesuatu Proklamasi di bawah Fasal (1) atau sesuatu perisytiharan yang dibuat dalam Proklamasi itu yang bermaksud seperti yang dinyatakan dalam Fasal (1):

(ii) kuat kuasa berterusan Proklamasi itu;

(iii) mana-mana ordinan yang dimasyhurkan di bawah Fasal (2B); atau

(iv) penerusan kuat kuasa mana-mana ordinan itu.

Walaupun begitu, Fasal 8 ini belum diuji di mahkamah.

Soalan 8

Apakah kuasa Yang di-Pertuan Agong berkaitan Pengisytiharan Darurat

Jawapan:

Kuasa Yang di-Pertuan Agong di bawah Perkara 150 mengenai pengisytiharan darurat termasuk kuasa untuk membuat proklamasi yang berlainan atas alasan berlainan atau keadaan berlainan.

Ini bermaksud Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh membuat beberapa proklamasi darurat pada masa sama atau pada masa berlainan. Hal ini terdapat dalam Perkara 150(2A).

Soalan 9

Bilakah Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh mengisytiharkan Darurat

Jawapan:

Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh boleh mengisytiharkan dan menguatkuasakan darurat ketika Majlis Parlimen masih ada, sama ada semasa berlaku persidangan atau tidak, atau ketika Parlimen telah dibubarkan.

Soalan 10

Apakah peranan Yang di-Pertuan Agong semasa Darurat

Jawapan:

Sekiranya proklamasi dibuat semasa Majlis Parlimen tidak bersidang serentak, Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh memasyhurkan undang-undang, yang dinamakan Ordinan, sekiranya baginda berpuas hati hal atau keadaan tertentu menyebabkan perlu bagi baginda mengambil tindakan serta merta. Ini disebut dalam Perkara 150(2B).

Maksud “Majlis Parlimen tidak bersidang serentak” boleh difahami dalam fasal (9) Perkara 150, yang memperuntukkan “Majlis-Majlis Parlimen hendaklah dikira sebagai bersidang HANYA jika ahli setiap Majlis itu masing-masingnya berhimpun bersama dan menjalankan urusan Majlis”.

Sekiranya Parlimen telah mula bersidang secara serentak, kuasa Yang di-Pertuan Agong terhenti dan kuasa perundangan dipulangkan kepada Parlimen. Sekiranya Parlimen telah kembali bersidang secara serentak, semua kuasa membuat undang-undang kembali kepada Parlimen walaupun keadaan darurat masih berlangsung.

Walaubagaimana pun, Parlimen boleh membuat Ordinan untuk memberikan kuasa kepada Yang di-Pertuan Agong untuk membuat undang-undang (keputusan Privy Council dalam kes Teh Cheng Poh).

Soalan 11

Adakah Parlimen boleh membuat undang-undang semasa darurat

Jawapan:

Semasa keadaan darurat ini Parlimen boleh membuat Ordinan jika didapati oleh Parlimen dikehendaki bagi tujuan darurat dan prosedur perundangan boleh diketepikan. Undang-undang ini adalah sah walaupun ia tidak selaras dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Dalam kes En Keok Cheng, Wylie C.J menyatakan, “The true effect of Article 150 is that, subject to certain exceptions set out therein, Parliament has, during an emergency, power to legislate on any subject and to any effect, even if inconsistencies with articles of the Constitution (including the provisions on fundamental liberties) are involved”.

Fasal (2C) Perkara 150 menyatakan “…Parlimen berkuasa membuat undang-undang, tanpa menghiraukan tatacara perundangan atau tatacara lain yang dikehendaki diikuti, atau perkadaran jumlah undi yang dikehendaki diperoleh dalam mana-mana satu Majlis Parlimen”. Lihat juga Perkara 150(5), yang mana Parlimen boleh membuat undang-undang tanpa persetujuan atau keizinan, atau tanpa perundingan bersama mana-mana pihak sebagaimana disyaratkan oleh undang-undang.

Parlimen tidak boleh membuat Ordinan darurat dalam beberapa perkara tertentu sahaja, iaitu Hukum Syarak (Undang-Undang Islam), adat Melayu atau undang-undang atau adat anak Negeri di Sabah dan Sarawak. Parlimen juga tidak boleh membuat Ordinan yang tidak selaras dengan peruntukan Perlembagaan dalam perkara berhubungan dengan agama, kewarganegaraan atau bahasa. (Lihat 150(6A)).

Proklamasi darurat dan Ordinan yang dibuat oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong semasa darurat hendaklah dibentangkan di hadapan kedua-dua Majlis Parlimen apabila keduanya bersidang serentak.

Soalan 12

Apakah kesan Ordinan yang dimasyhurkan oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong semasa Darurat

Jawapan:

Ordinan yang dimasyhurkan oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong itu adalah berkuat kuasa dan berkesan seolah-olah ia adalah Akta Parlimen. Ia boleh berkesan sehingga dibatalkan. Setelah Parlimen bersidang, Ordinan yang dimasyhurkan oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong hendaklah dibentangkan di hadapan kedua-dua Majlis Parlimen. Ordinan tersebut boleh diteruskan sekiranya diluluskan dan hendaklah dihentikan sekiranya tidak diluluskan oleh Parlimen.

Sekiranya Ordinan tersebut tidak diluluskan oleh Parlimen, ia tidak memberi kesan ke atas apa jua yang berlaku sebelum itu menurut kuat kuasa Proklamasi darurat atau Ordinan.

Bahkan, ketidaklulusan oleh Parlimen juga tidak menjejaskan kuasa Yang di-Pertuan Agong untuk membuat proklamasi darurat yang lain atau Ordinan yang lain bagi tujuan darurat lain tersebut. (Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh membuat beberapa proklamasi pada masa sama atau pada masa berbeza, atas sebab yang sama atau atas sebab yang berbeza).

Soalan 13

Bolehkah Yang di-Pertuan Agong membuat Ordinan Perbekalan (Bajet)

Jawapan:

Melihat kepada kuasa yang ada pada Yang di-Pertuan Agong, yang mana baginda boleh, sekiranya perlu dan baginda berpuas hati, memasyhurkan apa-apa ordinan semasa dua Majlis (Dewan) Parlimen tiada atau tidak bersidang serentak, maka sekiranya baginda berpuas hati dan perlu bagi memasyhurkan apa-apa perbelanjaan negara, baginda boleh berbuat demikian.

Namun setiap Ordinan yang dibuat oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong hendaklah dibentangkan kepada kedua Majlis Parlimen setelah keduanya bersidang serentak. Ordinan tersebut boleh dirungkaikan oleh resolusi yang dibuat oleh Parlimen. (Lihat Perkara 150(2) dan (3))

Soalan 14

Bilakah Darurat akan berakhir dan siapa yang mengumumkan darurat telah berakhir

Jawapan:

Perkara 150 tidak menyebut secara nyata tentang isu pengungkaian (annulling) proklamasi darurat – bila dan siapa.

Perkara 150(3) menyebut secara tidak langsung, “Proklamasi Darurat dan apa-apa ordinan yang dimasyhurkan di bawah Fasal (2B) … hendaklah terhenti berkuat kuasa jika ketetapan diluluskan oleh kedua-dua Majlis yang mengungkaikan Proklamasi…” Frasa yang bergaris ini menunjukkan pengungkaian (annulment) suatu proklamasi dan undang-undang darurat yang dibuat oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong itu boleh dibuat melalui resolusi yang diluluskan oleh kedua-dua Majlis Parlimen.

Kes The Cheng Poh menyatakan,

The power to revoke, however, like the power to issue a proclamation of emergency, vests in the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, and the Constitution does not require it to be exercised by any formal instrument. In their Lordships' view, a proclamation of a new emergency declared to be threatening the security of the Federation as a whole must by necessary implication be intended to operate as a revocation of a previous Proclamation, if one is still in force.

Soalan 15

Apakah akan berlaku kepada Ordinan yang dibuat semasa darurat apabila darurat berakhir

Jawapan:

Ordinan yang dibuat bagi tujuan darurat hendaklah terhenti berkuatkuasa setelah tamat tempoh enam bulan dikira dari tarikh Proklamasi Darurat terhenti berkuat kuasa. Maksudnya Ordinan tersebut boleh berkuat kuasa lagi sehingga habis tempoh enam bulan dari tarikh darurat berakhir. (Lihat Perkara 150(7)).

-- BERNAMA

Prof Madya Dr Shamrahayu A.Aziz merupakan Penyandang Kursi Institusi Raja-Raja Melayu Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM)