In an alternate universe, where America is a socialist state and The Republic of Russia is a Liberal Democracy, Malaysia is doing well just 10 years ahead of us.

Tan Sri Karl Nadzarin with Nadia Ashburn





1. Tan Sri Karl Nadzarin … PLAINTIFFS

2. Datuk Seri Panglima Aaron Randal Masudal


1. Barisan Rakyat … REPONDENTS

2. Dato Seri Hilman Idham

3. Dato’ Diraja Narashima Lim


Tan Sri Izmil Amri LB:

The Plaintiffs are  members of the Dewan Rakyat, the elected representative for the constituency of P.120 Bukit Bintang and P.172 Kota Kinabalu. They are also members of the Barisan Rakyat political party, which is also the first defendant named. The first defendant is the political party currently forming the Federal Government. The second defendant is the Chief Whip of Barisan Rakyat, elected representative for the constituency of P.110 Klang, also party president and the Prime Minister of Malaysia. While the third defendant is the elected representative of P.094 Hulu Selangor, and youth chief of Barisan Rakyat. Plaintiffs filed this originating summons seeking a declaration that the decision to suspend them from the party by the second defendant is unconstitutional and not valid in law. The Plaintiffs contend  that the suspension is a violation of their fundamental liberties and constitutional right to freedom of speech, assembly and association as contained in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.


[2] On 19.08.2020 a motion was moved in the Dewan Rakyat by the opposition leader and president of Pakatan Rakyat Dato Seri Utama Khairy Jamaluddin. It was a motion in regards to the decision of the government in not recognizing the degrees awarded by a civil society managed University, namely Universiti Bangsar Utama.

[3] On  20.08.2020 the first Plaintiff spoke against the government’s stand in the parliament, among others he mentioned that the decision was not in the people’s interest. He also criticized other Barisan Rakyat members of Parliament for not speaking against the decision, citing them as cowards and hypocrites.

[4] The second Plaintiff then in support of the first plaintiff also criticized the government’s stand. He described the stand as a return to the corrupt practices of the now defunct party, Barisan Nasional. He repeatedly called for the Dewan Rakyat to support the motion.

[5] At that point the third Defendant, stood up and warned the first and second Plaintiff that the whip is in force, and action will be taken against them. Both the Plaintiff then staged a walkout in solidarity with the opposition members of Parliament.

[5] On 24.08.2020, the third Defendant sent the suspension e-mail to both the respondent. The e-mail was digitally signed by the party president. The e-mail cited ”deliberate support for the opposition” as reason for the suspension. The suspension from all party post was to be immediate and remains so for an indefinite period.

[6] On the 25.08.2020 a formal directive was issued by the second defendant, that Members of Parliament from the ruling coalition were required to follow the party line unless otherwise instructed.

Plaintiffs Submissions

[7] The Plaintiffs argued that the convention in most  countries that utilize the  Westminster system, is that the whip is not in force unless explicitly made clear by the Chief Whip or his deputy.

[8] During the corrupt rule of Barisan Nasional, although the Chief Whip rarely issues official directives, government members of Parliament have tended to toe the party line. Most Barisan Nasional members of Parliament who have contravened the government’s stance in Parliament have been sanctioned.

[9] The plaintiffs alleged that the practice was unconstitutional as it was in contravention with article 10, and the spirit of democracy. The plaintiffs were merely exercising their constitutional duties by voicing out against the government’s stance with the peoples interest in mind.

[10] The party whip mechanism explicitly perverted, and corrupts the very basic operation of democracy. The plaintiffs take their argument one step further by denouncing the whole mechanism regardless of whether it is the type practiced in the United Kingdom, or any place for that matter.

[11] The constitution outlines for the people to elect their representatives so that  they act in the interest of the people. They represent the voices of the people in their respective constituencies. They were given a mandate to decide on matters affecting the people, not their political party. The party whip practice may be a Commonwealth convention, yet that does not mean all conventions are to be followed, as we are an independent nation.

[12] The practice is an unconstitutional  mechanism, therefore it shall not be recognized in law. Consistent with that, any action derived from such a mechanism shall be invalid. The Plaintiffs, also swiftly reminded the courts of its function to protect and defend the constitution from any illegitimate threats.

[13] The Plaintiffs argued that affiliation to a political party is merely a strategy in winning elections and in controlling the country. The whip mechanism in the Dewan Rakyat is a tool to ensure that strategy is kept in place. This mechanism violates the fundamental liberty of the elected representatives as envisaged in Article 10 of our constitution.

[14] Every citizen has the right to free speech, association and assembly. Three most important virtues that has to be upheld in order for democracy to strive. The party whip mechanism violates all three rights by sanctioning those who do not toe party lines. Such a sanction  is ultra vires as it has no legitimacy whatsoever. It is a practice against the spirit of democracy.

[15] The Plaintiffs demonstrated how this practice is not in line with the spirit of our constitution. They contend that all members of Parliament are supposed to speak for themselves and their respective constituency and not their party, any sanction that restricts this freedom must be deemed unconstitutional.

[16] They further elaborated that the constitution must be read in the best interest of the people against the state. The whole document is about protecting the interest and freedom of the people from the state. It must not be interpreted according to party lines, otherwise the constitution  is no more than a tool to suppress the people.

[17] If a member of Parliament has no freedom to speak his mind and vote according to his own consciences which derived legitimacy from the electorates, then the whole election process is a shameful mockery. The formal directive issued by the Prime Minister is explicitly unconstitutional, for political parties have no right in curtailing the fundamental freedom of speech.

[18] Plaintiffs prayed that the court do not approve of any corrupt practices that curtails democracy and the freedom of speech, association, and assembly, even if it was practiced by the English themselves.

Respondents Submissions

[19] The respondents, merely pointed out that the practice is an established convention in most Commonwealth countries. That the practice has been in force since 1955 when a national legislature for Malaya was first elected. They argued that it was necessary as only then the party would be effective in implementing its policies. I must say that I am rather disappointed with the quality of arguments put forward by the respondents counsel.


[20] I accept the argument of the plaintiff, that the conventional practice of a party whip in the parliament is unconstitutional. It violates the sanctity of Article 10, and is a mockery of our democracy and electoral process. Nobody should be sanctioned for speaking in the interest of the people.

[21] Let us be reminded of the 13th general elections, which saw the historic fall of the Barisan Nasional party that ruled over 5 decades. There were only three Barisan Nasional members that made it to the Dewan Rakyat.

[22] The Pakatan Rakyat, then moved significant reforms in just a matter of 100 days. The reforms were clearly meant to restore democracy, and the fundamental rights that was violated by the previous administration. It was also democracy that put Pakatan Rakyat as credible oppositions and Barisan Rakyat as the ruling party.

[23] It is clear to me that it was then, Malaysians of all walks of life wanted change and wanted their rights to be upheld. Democracy has since been a sacred virtue amongst us. Today, many nations exemplify Malaysia as a model democratic state.

[24] In the spirit of the constitution and democracy as a whole, I hereby announce the concept of a party whip is merely for convenience purpose and bears no legal basis. Hence any sanction or action derived from such a practice shall be unconstitutional for being inconsistent with Article 10 of The Federal Constitution.

[25] I refer to the federal decision of DatoWoon King Chai v. Government of Malaysia [2015] 5 LBJ 325. In that case, Federal Court Judge Dato’ Sri Fahri Azzat said that, ”the interest of the people collectively supersedes any legislation, as the interest of the people is protected by the supreme law of the federation. No entity shall dictate the people except the people themselves”. It has ever since become an established legal doctrine quoted in many decisions within and outside of Malaysia.

[26] With that I find the directive issued by the Prime Minister and the suspension letters as invalid as it is ultra vires, inconsistent with the Constitution and threatens democracy. Costs to the Plaintiff to be taxed unless otherwise agreed.

Dated 07.12.2020




For the Plaintiff : Lingswaran Singh, Lim Kean Leong and Ho Leng Hong (Messrs Randall Lim & Singh)

For the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants: Amir Farid, Presanth Michael and Lim Chee Jie (Messrs Narashima & Co)

Lingswaran Singh is a Penangite, travels between alternate universes every evening at 4.00 p.m. Izmil Amri is also a Penangite, he travels between dimensions with nine assistants that complicate his life. Karl Nadzarin is not a Penangite, he is the Prince of Liechtenstein from an alternate Universe. He travels around Klang Valley with his Perodua Kenari. Hilman Idham makes fantastic Acehnese coffee, and he is on the way to become the Prime Minister of Malaysia. Messrs Randall Lim & Singh and Messrs Narashima & Co is yet to be established.

Lingswaran Singh has been a LoyarBurokker since he was 5. He speaks an open but disinterested language, dictated not by passion but that of humanity. Independence is his happiness. His country is the world,...

8 replies on “Karl Nadzarin v Barisan Rakyat”

  1. That isn’t your picture Nadia. That the picture of Karl and Nadia from an alternate universe.

  2. @Shan – Why is Nadia Ashburn’s picture here?

    Because she is Tan Sri Karl's personal assistant.

    What is her significance to this judgment?

    She was in the court… moral suport

    And how is it that Fahri Azzat is only a Dato Sri in this alternate universe, and not a Panglima Awang Tun Datuk Seri Utama Diraja Generalissimo?

    You also travel between universes ar?

  3. I shall now leave the party and create a new party, KAMI, emulating a certain politician in the past who did something similar with a party name which was also a pronoun.

    I would also like to add, in the spirit of free speech and now that i have won the case, "In Your FACE!!"

  4. Why is Nadia Ashburn's picture here? What is her significance to this judgment? And how is it that Fahri Azzat is only a Dato Sri in this alternate universe, and not a Panglima Awang Tun Datuk Seri Utama Diraja Generalissimo?

  5. Why you should also ask who is Narashima Lim and Amir Farid. They are all, just characters who are lawyers in the alternate Universe.

Comments are closed.