Monday, March 09, 2009

Inilah Ketuanan Pakatan Rakyat - 1

Berikut merupakan artikel yang dipetik daripada blog Jebat Must Die. Amat menarik perhatian.

Undang-undang di Malaysia hanyalah adil dan saksama apabila Kehakiman, Polis dan badan Eksekutif berdiri di gelanggang Pakatan Rakyat.

Jebat Must Die - V Sivakumar's Constitutional Expert
(full text)

Back in October 2008, Tommy Thomas (if it is the same person as above) was interviewed by The Nut Graph. This Constitutional expert reiterated time and time again in his interview that it is within the powers of the Monarchy to select who would be the Prime Minister.

Since the state constitution of Perak follows closely to the Federal Constitution, we can juxtapose what he is saying then to the situation we have now in Perak.

Among the pertinent points he said were:

“Then Abdullah would have to visit the palace and inform the king that he has lost the confidence of his own party, and so tender his resignation and the resignation of his cabinet. And the king will accept that.

When that happens, there is a vacancy in the office of the prime minister. At that point of time, the king has a free hand, because Article 43(2)(a) [of the Federal Constitution] — the appointing process — comes into play. The king can decide whether he calls the new leader of the Barisan Nasional (BN), which will be Najib; or somebody else who, in the king’s judgment, enjoys majority support in the Dewan Rakyat.”

“As outlined in Article 43(4), if Abdullah himself feels he has lost the majority support for whatever reason, including that he is losing support within Umno, he is entitled to visit the king [to do the following]. He can tell the king he wants to tender his resignation and that of his cabinet because he thinks he no longer enjoys the support of the majority of the lower house (the Dewan Rakyat), and ask for Parliament to be dissolved. And call [for] elections.

He is entitled to ask [which is one of his prerogatives as sitting prime minister]. But it is the king’s prerogative whether to say yes or no. The king can take into account the interests of the nation, economic factors, political turbulence, the fact that elections were held recently, the costs involved, etc. But the discretion is the king’s.”

“We are invited to interpret Article 43(4) which reads: “If the PM (JMD : in this case the MB) ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House of Representatives, then, unless at his request the Yang diPertuan Agong dissolves Parliament, the prime minister shall tender the resignation of the cabinet.”

What we are trying to do is find out what is the intention of our founding fathers. That is what the task is all about. How do you interpret those words?

Who are the founding fathers? First, the five members of the Reid Commission — two members from the UK, one from Australia, one from India and one from Pakistan — the senior Commonwealth members. The other group of people are Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun VT Sambanthan and Tun Tan Cheng Lock.

What we are trying to do is interpret their words, 43(4), with the intention they had in mind. Some legal experts have said it is limited to a poll, a vote of no confidence in the Dewan Rakyat.

My argument is that cannot be the intention because if it is so limited, then the language would have been something like this: “If the Prime Minister is defeated on a motion of confidence in the House of Representatives, then…” So you see the opening words of 43(4) and my imaginary version are very different…the actual wording is far more general, broad and wide, whereas the other is specific and limited to one method.

But the important thing is that it is the king’s satisfaction that matters. The king must be satisfied that the prime minister of the day no longer enjoys the confidence of the majority of the lower house. So what that means actually is that the king cannot act arbitrarily; there must be some objective facts, some proof, some reason for him to act.

How he goes about satisfying himself on this point is up to the king.”


Anonymous said...

good job gwl...

RPK last year also did a boo boo by writing this article below:

Read it and enjoy...

Anonymous said...

No point copying what JMD writes. What is in contention in Perak is the Sultan's ability to dismiss the MB. Not the Sultan's authority to appoint an MB.

The Sultan appointed Zambry but Nizar needs to resign beforehand. Only way to remove Nizar would be a vote of no confidence in the state assembly. This step was not taken.

Like an amateur playing a game of chess, BN was too hurried. If they had thought it all through, cleared the legal hurdles of the resignation letters etc. and called for a emergency sitting, Nizar could be removed by the BN majority.

In their haste, BN shot themselves in their foot and now we have this mess.

Call for an election and resolve this once and for all. As Ku Li said, BN is afraid to call for an election as they know the outcome is not likely to be favourable to them.

BN started this mess, now they should face up to it. No point you asking Nizar to give up his struggle. It is his legal right to do what he is doing. If you are so concerned, write a letter to Zambry and ask him to agree to snap elections.

Otherwise, stop being an apologist for BN. You might be gung ho due to your youth but once you see enough of the BN nonsense going on, your tune will change. Unless you hope to be part of the patronage system of course.


Wei Liang Goh said...

Eillom I think you got yourself mixed up.

No where in the Perak Constitution does it say that there should be a vote of no confidence IN THE STATE ASSEMBLY.

Actually a vote of no confidence was carried out in front of Sultan Azlan Shah.

28 BN MPs together with 3 Independent MPs informed their decisions that Nizar has lost their confidence and they are not lending their support to BN to form a new Government.

That happened on 6th February 2009 at the Palace in Perak.

If I am not mistaken, it was Istana Kinta.

Whether or not a vote of no confidence is necessary in the State Assembly or Palace, it is just a matter of location.

If we can pass motions under a tree, why not in the Palace?

Anonymous said...


No intention to have a protracted debate with you on this one but

1) Having 28 BN and 3 Independents (lets not go into their status here) in front of the Sultan does not constitute a vote of no confidence.

2) A vote of no confidence requires a motion to be lodged with the Speaker of the Assembly and the Speaker then deciding whether to accept or reject the motion (this was done in parliament last year but motion was rejected)

3) The Sultan is not the Speaker.

4) If motion is accepted, voting is carried out with all eligible members of assembly voting.

5) Assembly need not be held in the Dewan Negeri (as demonstrated by the Meeting under the tree) and need not have all members present (just as how BN members chose to boycott the Meeting under the tree)

6) Once votes are tallied, the vote of no confidence is passed/rejected.

In summary, you can't have a motion of no confidence based on rules you make up along the way (ie. who attends, who decides etc.). I am sure you would agree that there are specific rules which need to be adhered to. Afterall, there is a reason why the Speaker runs the Assembly. Things have to be orderly.

Having a vote of no confidence as you described above which is not called by the Speaker is by no stretch of the imagination a vote.

Now as I said, BN got too excited and in the process, instead of check mating PR, are now in a position of stalemate.

Wei Liang Goh said...

The Constitution of Perak. One of its Article is as follow

Article XVI(6): "If the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the Legislative Assembly, then unless at his request His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council".

I accept the fact that there is another opinion on this, like yours.

But I hope you understand that I interpret the Constitution in another manner too.

That is why we have multiple Constitutional experts who have differing views.