jump to navigation

(Readings) Perak, A Constitutional Crisis February 6, 2009

Posted by elizabethwong in Current Affairs, Democracy, Malaysia, Politics, Readings.
Tags: ,
trackback

Perak, A Constitutional Crisis
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar 

Now that the dust is settling, it is becoming clearer what it is that took place in Perak over the last twenty-four hours. My respectful view is that His Highness may have acted erroneously in directing the resignation of the Mentri Besar.

As always, it will be useful to consider the objective facts. They are as follows:

  • His Highness, the Sultan of Perak, granted audiences and in doing so was made to understand that the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly no longer support the incumbent Mentri Besar. Of these, three memberships are disputed in view of letters of resignation having been tendered to the Speaker. The Speaker has taken the position that the letters are valid and as such the two members are no longer members. Further, legal proceedings are being contemplated
  • excluding the three disputed memberships, both the Pakatan Rakyat and the Barisan Nasional each hold influence over twenty-eight members
  • twenty-eight members have indicated in private to His Highness that they no longer have confidence in the incumbent Mentri Besar. With the three disputed memberships, this number increases to thirty-one
  • no vote of confidence has been moved at the Assembly
  • the incumbent Mentri Besar made a request for dissolution of the Assembly. This request was not made on the basis that the majority of members had lost confidence in the Mentri Besar. Rather, it was made on the basis that in the circumstances it might be appropriate for fresh elections to be held in the State
  • on 5th February 2009 His Highness refused the request and directed the Executive Council to resign. From a statement issued by the palace, this directive was based on His Highness having refused the request for dissolution.
  • crucially, the directive was made in accordance with Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution. This article provides that where a request for dissolution is made as a consequence of the Mentri Besar ceasing to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly and His Highness refuses, the incumbent Mentri Besar must tender the resignation of the Executive Council.

From the above, it is apparent that His Highness considered the situation to be one in which the Mentri Besar had ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members. In doing so, His Highness accepted the three disputed members as still being members of the Assembly and as such approached the situation on the assumption that the Barisan block outnumbered Pakatan by three instead of one. It must be borne in mind that:

  • as noted above Article 16(6) is specifically directed to a no-confidence scenario, that is the incumbent Mentri Besar can seek the dissolution of the Assembly upon his having ceased to command the confidence of the majority
  • Article 36(2) however provides more generally that His Highness has the power to dissolve the assembly. It is clear that this provision is aimed at allowing His Highness to dissolve the Assembly for other reasons thought to be appropriate
  • as a matter of law His Highness is empowered to do what is permitted under the Perak Constitution and the Federal Constitution. This is the essence of a constitutional monarchy
  • the Perak Constitution does not empower His Highness to dismiss the Mentri Besar. The manner in which the Mentri Besar is to be removed from office is as provided for under Article 16(6), through a refusal to dissolve the Assembly at the request of the Mentri Besar when the Mentri Besar has ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the Assembly.

It is apparent that His Highness had moved on the assumption that the request for dissolution was prompted by the Mentri Besar having ceased to command the confidence of the majority. This may have been based on a misapprehension of the situation and the appeal to the Sultan to dissolve the Assembly for reasons other than confidence. If so, then the directive to resign was arguably not tenable.

However, it could be said that all things considered His Highness had come to the conclusion that in any event the Mentri Besar no longer commanded confidence. In this context, the central question is whether His Highness was empowered to conclude that the incumbent Mentri Besar no longer commanded the confidence of the Assembly without there having been a vote of no confidence.

There is precedent. The Federal Court had in 1966 (Stephan Kalong Ningkam) determined that a similar provision of the Sarawak Constitution required there to be a vote of no confidence taken in the Assembly before the Chief Minister was obliged to resign. The decision was based on several key factors that I believe to be relevant to this discussion. These were:

  • the Sarawak Constitution did not empower the Governor to dismiss a Chief Minister
  • the phrase “confidence of the majority” was a term of art and could be read as implying the need for a vote of confidence or a vote on a major issue. The Court took into consideration the fact that the Sarawak Council Negri should, in principle, manage its own affairs.
  • no vote had been taken in the Council Negri and instead the Governor had come to his conclusion based on extraneous matters, particularly confidential letters. The Court observed that members expressing a view outside the Council Negri might very well take a different position in it when under the scrutiny of the public. This was of particular significance as out of the forty-two members of the Council Negri only twenty-one had indicated their not supporting the incumbent Chief Minister.

It could therefore be credibly argued that the Perak Constitution requires the tabling of a vote of confidence in the circumstances. The factors considered by the Federal Court have great significance to the scenario at hand, one as ambiguous as that which the Federal Court was faced with in 1966.

Much will now depend on what the incumbent Mentri Besar does. In Stephan Kalong Ningkam, the Chief Minister concerned took it to court and won. The Federal Court declared the Governor as having acted unconstitutionally and the dismissal of the Chief Minister invalid. Mohamad Nizar could attempt the same course.

It would be regrettable if the situation were forced to escalate to that level. Litigation of that nature, any nature for that matter, will be disruptive at all levels. With the Barisan Nasional moving in already though, it seems that there is little choice in the matter. Walking away is simply not an option that the constitution and the people and democracy will allow for.

In the meanwhile, we will have to buckle in for what has become a full-blown constitutional crisis.

(Malaysian Insider; 6th February 2009)

About these ads

Comments»

1. yumcious - February 6, 2009

I sure hope the demonstrations near the Palace today and the run-ins with the FRU as not organized by PKR/PAS/DAP.

We did not vote for goons.

2. bangsa Cina Malaysia - February 6, 2009

perakian berkabung atas kematian demokrasi dan kuasa rakyat.

3. eagle - February 6, 2009

Take the case to court. This is not derhaka as claimed by the UMNO goons but to put thing right and protect the rakyat and the royalty.
Let it be a lesson to all who desire to rule but exercise injustice.
YB, if we can’t trust the politicians, the government and the royalty, then what hope do we have as ordinary citizen in this country.

4. Rakyat Malaysia - February 6, 2009

Asalamualaikum,

Rakyat Perak dan seluruh Malaysia marilah berkabung atas kematian demokrasi
dan berdoalah kuasa kepada rakyat untuk memilih di kembalikan serta merta.

InsyaAllah MB Nizar akan kembali berkuasa.

Ameen.

5. Samuel Goh Kim Eng - February 6, 2009

WHAT LAW TO DRAW WITH CLAWS RAW

When it’s law versus law
There’ll be great wounds raw
With both sides using their claws
To create pictures artists fear to draw

(C) Samuel Goh Kim Eng – 060209
http://MotivationInMotion.blogspot.com
Fri. 6th Feb. 2009.

6. Dave - February 6, 2009

Hee you bitch

7. Katharina Sri (former Noor Aza Othman) - February 6, 2009

This is the reason why Monarchy must be abolished, in a progressive century of achieving true and secular democracy. The monarchy in Malaysia, with 9 Kings who are mainly millionaires, are a travesty of justice and equality in a progressive modern world, and to the poor in Malaysia! And to fair and just-minded Islam.

Katharina Sri (former Noor Aza Othman)
Germany.

8. Cebu Image - February 6, 2009

One thing I like in Malaysian and Filipinos. The both love politics and power. Never content of simple and peaceful life.

Congratulation Malay Race

9. Ainon Abdullah - February 6, 2009

aiyoo sep 16…. sep 16 all over again!

10. anak_perelih - February 7, 2009

After reading many blogs…. is there a possibility that The Sultan was blackmailed by Najib/BN/UMNO to decide against his opinion…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 43 other followers

%d bloggers like this: