Your reasoning appears sound, especially in view of the persistent use to “may”, as opposed to “must” in the legislation. I think we also need to look at the reason for the legislation, whether it was intended to curb representation for public officers or whether it was just to give them the (optional) benefit of state-sponsored representation. Has there been any case law on this?

Another key question is whether Hafarizam had written consent from the State Legal Adviser to act for Zambry. News reports do not mention whether Sivakumar’s legal team challenged Hafarizam’s standing, which is SUCH an obvious point that either (i) Hafarizam did get consent (shock horror!) or (ii) they were just plain negligent.

If they are the legimate MB/Excos, then the same ruling that applies to the Speaker Siva must also apply to them. They must, by applying the Court’s decision, be represented by the SLA.

According to JC Ridwan’s reasoning, since Speaker Siva is paid allowances from public funds, then Siva is a public servant. He doesn’t know or chose to ignore that the State Assy’men ie Zambery and team, are also paid allowances from public funds. You see the flaw of his reasoning.

The actual law when appointing counsels is this; when you read the sections as a whole with reference made only to State matters.

s.24(1)(b) : If the State Gov’t is the party, only the SLA may appear for them. But the SLA can authorise in writing AG/SG/FC or A&S to appear for the Gov’t. If an A&S is retained, then the State has to pay for the legal fees and other expenses of such A & S. Read s.s 3.

s.s(2)(b) and (3) – if a public/State officer is sued in his personal capacity, the State will not offer any legal help in providing the services of their law officers since this is a personal matter. The said officer has to hire an A & S to appear for him. If he requires the services of the State’s legal officers, then the SLA must certify in writing that it is in the interest of such officer that he be represented by the State legal officers. Alternatively if he engages an A&S and wants the State Gov’t to reimburse his legal fees, the SLA must also certify as to the above.

s.s 2(a) and 3. If the State officer is sued in his official capacity by virtue of his office, then he has a choice of engaging his own team of lawyers or to use the services of the State’s legal officers. The State can’t refuse his request to be represented by the State’s legal officers and neither could the State forced him to accept the services of such officer. S.24 ( 2)(a) only states, that the State’s legal officers may appear on behalf of the State officer. The choice is left entirely to the discretion of the State officer whether to use the services of the State’s legal officers which is free of charge or to engage his team of lawyers at his own cost and expenses.

If the State Officer decides to engage his own team of lawyers, and he also wants the State to compensate for the cost and expenses incurred, then the SLA must certify in writing that it is in the public interest that the State officer should be represented by such A & Ss.

The bottom line is this. Every litigant, whether public or private person, is entitled to be represented by the best legal brains in the country at his own cost and expenses. The State would only help him to bear such expenses if it is in the public interest to do so.

In Siva’s case, he has appointed his own team of lawyers presumably at his own cost and expenses and as such there is nothing in Sect.24 GPA ‘56 barring him from doing so. No public funds are expended. The State’s role is to offer its legal services at Siva’s disposals and to ensure no public funds are wasted if Siva chose to dispense with their services.

That is the law and that ahould have been advanced. No matter how you look at it, Speaker Siva is not a public servant but he is definitly a public officer. A public officer is one who discharges a duty in which the public is interested. But whether Siva is a State officer is a moot point.

Finally s. 24 uses the words, ‘Law officers’ and ‘legal officers’. When it deals in state matters, it uses the words law offices. When it deals with public/state officers, it uses the word legal officer. Both are seperately defined.

Any comments on my take.

For whatever sake, let’s all the men n women in Malaysia think with head above in 3 years time. Who cares whether the opposite can do a good job. We just want a change. Get us some fresh air. that’s we ask for.

The French papers are giving headline news on how Alantuya got blown up bit by bit and how she was shot, how her dress was removed and where the explosives were all placed. Very interesting – when she had apparently been travelling all over Europe in the Maseratti with Razak and dining with you can guess who in posh a club in …..!.

Then we have news of Emrail and Gamuda and the politics of double track railways in the PR States. Interesting to know who was in Emarail before.

After that we have allegations of the son of a top person in the Investigative Services being caught in Australia with porn tapes and being taken to the Magistrate in Handcuffs.

The someone writes about the Juiciary from the top to the bottom and appeals that we should try to understand the predicament that the Judicial Commissioner in Perak was placed in.

Then we learn that all of us who fly out of KLIA are paying YTL RM 8.00 each everytime we take a flight. Ripped without our knowledge.

Then an Australian journalist rips apart the Accounts and liabilities of Air Asia and raises pertinent questions.

Finally we have of course the the SAGA of Perak.

All these are too much for many of us to corelate and digest. All that we can surmise is that WE are ALL in for a very bad time.

May God have mercy on us all for having failed to stop BN in its tracks many years ago until it had become too late. BN is no more thinking rationally. Power has made it mad.

It is said that “Those whom the Gods wish to destroy – They make them mad first”.

I would like to point out her statement that, “the State Legal Advisor is clearly in a position of conflict. He and his department are presently acting for Dato’ Zambry in the Kuala Lumpur High Court suit where Dato’ Zambry’s appointment is being challenged. How can he or his department now act for the Speaker against Dato’ Zambry?”

The possible “conflict of position” is also debatable. The State Legal Advisor may argue that they can be fair and independent though it will be a mystery to many of us how they can achieve that.

So now, what option is available to the Speaker? None, in my view, the proceeding is meant to be against the Speaker in the first place.