Loyal Followers

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

What are you staying?

There was a man. His name was Muthu. He married Meenachi. All those time he was feeling uneasy. He was not attracted to Meenachi. But he had to marry her because it was arranged. In fact, he wasn't attracted to any woman. Muthu felt that he was actually a woman trapped in a man's body.

So, he finally summoned enough courage and underwent a sex change. He took whatever hormones pills to make his skin smooth. Removed his penis. Implanted silicon into his chest and grow them up to a pair of C cuppers.

Then he went to Court. And asked for a declaration that he was and is a woman. He also asked for a divorce. Meenachi objected. Some NGO, claiming to represent some rights group intervened and objected too. Some family members also objected.

After a lengthy hearing and hearing submissions from eminent and not so eminent Counsel, the Court granted a declaration that Muthu is and was at all material times a woman. Muthu was very happy. He celebrated. At last, he was free from the constraint of being labelled a man when he is in fact a woman.

Or so he thought.

His wife appealed. The NGO also joined in. His family members as well. While waiting for the appeal, his wife asked the Court of Appeal for an order staying the declaration which Muthu had earlier obtained in the High Court.

Despite the fact that there were two other sittings of the Court of Appeal that day, where a full coram of 3 Court of Appeal Judges were sitting in each of the two sittings, Meenachi's application for a stay order was heard by a single Judge. But Muthu did not say anything. Because under the law, a single Judge could hear such application.

The single Judge Court of Appeal, after hearing submissions, granted an order staying the declaration which Muthu had earlier obtained.

Muthu now has a problem. She has been declared a woman. She behaves like a woman. Dress like one. She's got C-cup boobs. And she has no dick. When she wants to go to the loo, she would want to go to the ladies loo. In fact that is the primary reason for obtaining the declaration. She wants to be able to go to the ladies toilet without committing an offence under some municipal regulations.

But now the declaration is stayed. What does that mean? Does it mean that Muthu is not a woman? But the Court has declared so. In law she is a woman. How? Does it mean now that Muthu cannot go to the ladies toilet? She doesn't want to go to men's toilet. What would the men say? Or do? She has boobs. Wears skirt. No dick. Some men might just smile. Some might take it the wrong way. Some might molest her in the men's toilet. How?

And does it mean now Muthu also cannot behave like a woman? Must she now wear pants and scratch the area where her balls used to be, like other men? And drink beer from the mug in one gulp? And burp loudly after that? Must she also pee while standing? When she is in Kelantan, which supermarket lane is she supposed to be in? Male or female? Muthu is confused. She really doesn't know what to do. How is she supposed to behave now?

Muthu consults her lawyers. Her lawyers say a declaration cannot be stayed. How can a declaration be stayed? You can stay the execution of a judgement or order. Meaning, if the Court gives an order saying Meenachi owes 1 million to Muthu, the Court can stay the execution of that order. When that kind of stay is given, it means that Muthu cannot do anything to recover that 1 million until Meenachi's appeal is heard and decided upon. But in that case, it is still an accepted fact that Muthu is a holder of an order requiring Meenachi to pay 1 million to Muthu. That order is not reversed. It is valid. The only thing is that Muthu cannot recover that 1 million just yet. Until Meenachi's appeal is heard and decided upon, that is.

But Muthu did not get that kind of order. Muthu obtained a declaration that she was and is a woman. How do you stay that kind of order. Stay what? To stay that kind of declaration would tantamount to the Court of Appeal reversing the declaration which the High Court had granted after full adjudication. That couldn't be. How can the Court of Appeal do that without hearing the appeal on the merit?

To do such thing would tantamount to the CoA not recognising the High Court order. The CoA surely cannot do that. In the hypothetical case of the 1 million order above, the Court does not invalidate that order. The Court just suspends Muthu's right to recover the 1 million. The Court recognises the validity of the order but the Court says Muthu should not recover the 1 million for the time being.

But to stay a declaration is a different game. That is like saying that declaration does not exist for now. So, Muthu is, for the time being, a man.

Muthu is thinking of wearing black all the time.

PS Just as a digression. On Nizar v Zambry declaration, I was thinking. Under section 54 (d) of the Specific Relief Act 1950, no injunction shall be granted to, among others, interfere with the public duties of any department of any Government in Malaysia. Nizar has been declared the Menteri Besar of Perak. Now, the stay which was given operates or at least is intended to stop him from carrying out his duties as the MB of Perak. It operates as an injunction of sort. Wouldn't section 54 apply? Just a thought.

19 comments:

kas said...

hillarious la art.. actually i had no idea where it was going till the mention of appeal. me thinks you should be msm collumnist. more people will get the idea.

Anonymous said...

why can't nizar resign as a gentleman instead of trying to

Fi-sha said...

Dear Art,
So crystal clear i thought i was snorkelling at Gem's Island in Tganu :)...Brilliant!

Sasa said...

Anon 11.30am- Why can't Mandela-Ghandiji Zamzam behave like a wellmannered human being and walk the talk? Sezs he respects the High Court decision but immediately files for a stay.
Hey Art love your wit.

donplaypuks® said...

What Muthu should have done was to first go accidentally on purpose holiday with the single CoA Judge (and his family) to Auckland, NZ, and bungalow house hunting in Damansara.

Then the CoA single Judge would not only have declared that Muthu was a woman, but that his wife Meenachi was a stinking, lying low0caste Lesbian!

http://donplaypuks.blogspot.com

Voice of the Oppressed, Suppressed said...

A good thought. Please notify Nizar;s lawyer about that point - section 54 (d) of the Specific Relief Act 1950.
You are smart, Harun!

yun said...

you make sense.now you're officially my 2nd favorite lawyer after malik imtaz. :)

Hamba said...

Yes, where does it imply from the stay order that Zambry is and still the MB? No where! Nizar is the legal MB as declared by High Court! High court in that sense also declared that Zambry is an IMPOSTOR! An impostor does not have any legal standing to appeal for stay! A police impostor found guilty in court cannot appeal to the appeal court still claiming to be a real policeman. You are found guilty for impersonating as policeman and still have the gall challenging the court to say otherwise? What kind of law do we have? It confusing, it's ridiculous and absurd... Someone who is haram files an appeal for stay and still he says he is Halal? The stay order did not say he is Halal, you're still haram but it just that you want some time out to get a second opinion. You're still haram and have no business acting as the MB. UMNO people like spinning so much that now they are confused of the order they got from the court. Bloody idiots... Nelson Mandela??? More like Baldrick from the Black adder more like it!

smoking gun said...

The law ARTfully simplified for the confused ;) Had a damn good laugh after being so infuriated yesterday. You the man Art!

donplaypuks® said...

Japanese truck driver delivers 100 Nissan cars to the office of Latok 2nd Hand Car Salesman Camry.

Latok Camry, confused and furious:

"WTF! What's going on?"

Jap Truck Driver:

"Consignment Note say deriver to 'Nissan Maindealer'. You say you Nissan Maindealer orr over world, right?"

Heh, heh, heh!
donplaypuks.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Dear Art,

As always and insofar, you have made your writings in a manner that layman can easily graps points of law which are sometimes complicated.

Kudos!

IbnAbdHalim said...

The 'unlearned' judge has brought added shame to our already tainted judiciary.

smitcp said...

Art,

You made my day!

Well written and please do write more on UMNO and their political greed!!!

Cruzeiro said...

Dang man!
You're right - They cannot "stay" a "declaration" as opposed to an execution of judgement!, and hence Nizar is legally the MB.
That makes Zambry the Impostor in contempt of court as he usurps the duties of an MB!!
Jeez - How come I didn't think of it that way .... I suppose that's why I'm not a lawyer ...

Anonymous said...

Art

I would suppose that if Muthu has to use the male toilet, his feet would always be wet ...

Great one as usual ..

rob

Anonymous said...

Art ..

ps ... and he would have to squat at the erection ...

rob

LAT said...

Bro Art,

" A man's WISDOM makes his face SHINE !" Now i can FEEL the SHINESSNESS of your face far from here though i will only see you this coming 15/5/09 at the PJ Civic Hall for the EGM. Cheers !

Kris said...

Great piece Art! The clarification was excellent. And the wit? LOL!!!

The BN isn't following the due standards of the law and is in fact perverting and usurping justice in Perak. I should thank them for this blatant display of greed for power, total lack of observance of due principles and of the law. At least me and my fellow Malaysians have less doubt (if there was any) of what they have become... and to vote for change at the earliest opportunity

Awey Kelate said...

If your story is tarnish DS Nizar's reputation....you can forget about it. UMNO has been tainted for so many years in our judiciary "beauty". The "correct" 'correct" "correct" lawyer and all the players in this drama are still fresh in my mind. They are really the "sod*mizers" of our judiciary.
Zambry Kadir, the "exco" and the "speaker" - shame on them for being so rude and backward.