Hsk n ccs can do no worse than khairy n musha
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Nobody has a majority support to be PM in jiu hu parliament, so a emergency maybe declared.
- Thread starter syed putra
- Start date
Here it’s my 2 cents worth of take , why Oh why that fucking two !Kind of wonder why LHL pick those two...
it’s a LKY doctrine to begin with , that only few smart ones are born to rule the rest ...if you had listen to all the past LKY speeches it echoes this philosophy of why and how only few are born to rule
and that is one of the reason why he studied the kelings religious belief in casteism , where men are born to do different things in their entire lives , ...LKY and his wifu were still reading such Hindu books as Manushastra and books written by Sanakya , who were the earliest proponents of casteism some thousands years ago
but since you cannot introduce Hindu sort of casteism to a largely chinese population , LKY wanted to create human in Pedigree ...so he resorted to the ancient Chinese mehotid of imperial examination where mere men became scholars and were separated thus
sort of a fusion between Hindu casteism and chinese imperial exam selection
and that gave birth to our scholar boys , who were chosen on the basis of their exam results and kept in services for LIFE
that sums it up why only those two
because in order for LKYs philosophy to succeed , there can be no failure in the selection process , because of the selection process fails than his entire premises of elite ruling the rest of us plebeians also fails
Seat warmers and wont rock the boat n still report to the familyKind of wonder why LHL pick those two...
The quotas and discrimination and bumi policies must go as It hinders the real businesses frommp functioning to its maximum potential.
Normally lky will pick someone tall. It's part of psychology where the bigger guy has more clout. Look eye to eye with the western leaders.
But in the west, even short leaders like macron can match those of taller ones
Already explained to u many times.
COVID-19: No need to declare state of emergency at this time, says Malaysian king
Malaysia's new King Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah attends a welcoming ceremony at the Parliament House in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia January 31, 2019. REUTERS/Lai Seng Sin/Files
By Amir Yusof@AmirYusofCNA
By Vincent Tan
25 Oct 2020 06:46PM(Updated: 25 Oct 2020 07:20PM)
Bookmark
KUALA LUMPUR: There is no need to declare a state of emergency in Malaysia at this time, said King Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri'ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah on Sunday (Oct 25), in response to suggestions put forward by Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin regarding the COVID-19 situation.
In a statement issued by the palace, Comptroller of the Royal Household Ahmad Fadil Shamsuddin said that the king "is of the opinion, that at this time, there is no need for His Majesty to implement a state of emergency in the country or any specific areas of the country."
Advertisement
"Even so, His Majesty would like to remind politicians to immediately stop all politicking that could disrupt the stability of the government," the statement said.
"Al-Sultan Abdullah is also of the opinion that there is no need for Members of Parliament to continue their irresponsible actions that may jeopardize the stability of the existing Government," Mr Ahmad Fadhil added.
The statement added that the National Budget, which will be tabled in Parliament in November, "is very important to the people in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic and reviving the country's economy".
"Therefore, financial allocation is very much needed by frontline staff to undergo their duties and responsibilities."
Advertisement
The announcement was made after the king met other Malay rulers earlier in the day to discuss the suggestions put forward by Mr Muhyiddin.
Article 150 of the Constitution stipulates that the Malaysian king may issue a proclamation of emergency, upon the advice of the prime minister, if he is satisfied that a grave emergency exists whereby the security, economic life or public order is threatened.
COVID-19 cases in Malaysia have now surged to more than 25,000, with a record daily jump of 1,228 new cases reported on Saturday.
On Friday, Mr Muhyiddin had chaired a special Cabinet meeting in Putrajaya. Following that, he sought an audience with the king at the latter's palace in Kuantan, Pahang.
The king said on Saturday that he would meet with the other Malay rulers to discuss the suggestions put forward by the prime minister.
A car believed to be carrying Malaysian Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin arriving at Istana Abdulaziz in Kuantan, Pahang on Oct 23, 2020 for an audience with King Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri’ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah. (Photo: Bernama)
Commenting on the king's meeting with the other rulers, Mr Ahmad Fadhil said: "After considering the request (from the prime minister) and discussing with the Malay rulers, and considering the situation of the country, Al-Sultan Abdullah felt the current government has managed to deal with this pandemic well and effectively.
"His Majesty strongly believes in the ability of the Government under the leadership of the Prime Minister to continue to implement policies and enforcement actions to curb the symptoms of the COVID-19 epidemic from continuing to spread."
Rumours that Mr Muhyiddin wanted to impose a state of emergency had prompted opposition leaders to condemn the proposal.
Opposition leader and Parti Keadilan Rakyat president Anwar Ibrahim has said that the proposal would curb the parliamentary process.
"Today, we have a government which lacks legitimacy, and which knows it would fail to demonstrate majority support in parliament, and is using the COVID-19 crisis as an excuse to justify its abuse of power," the opposition leader said in a statement on Friday.
Mr Anwar, who leads the Pakatan Harapan (PH) bloc in parliament against Mr Muhyiddin's Perikatan Nasional (PN) government, also strongly advised the latter to consider the legacy of his actions.
The Malaysian parliament is set to reconvene on Nov 2, with the tabling of next year's budget on Nov 6. Moreover, polling for Batu Sapi by-election in Sabah has been set for Dec 5.
In March, the rising case number had compelled the government to institute a nationwide movement control order (MCO) to combat the spread of the coronavirus.
It was eased into a conditional MCO (CMCO) in early May and a recovery MCO in June as case numbers began to fall, while targeted enhanced MCO was applied at areas with local surges.
READ: Malaysian opposition politicians condemn possible emergency measures amid speculation
However, there has been a sharp rise in cases following the conclusion of the Sabah state election as a result of an outbreak at a Lahad Datu lock-up. Currently, the states of Selangor and Sabah, and the federal territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya have been placed under CMCO again.
Meanwhile, political drama has dragged on in the country, with Mr Anwar claiming he had a convincing majority to take over the government.
On Wednesday, the United Malay National Organisation (UMNO), which is part of Mr Muhyiddin's government, called for a "political ceasefire" in order to focus efforts on combatting the plague.
Previously, the party had been agitating for a fairer redistribution of government positions and ministerial posts as it has the largest number of Members of Parliament in the ruling Perikatan Nasional (PN) government.
Malaysia's new King Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah attends a welcoming ceremony at the Parliament House in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia January 31, 2019. REUTERS/Lai Seng Sin/Files
By Amir Yusof@AmirYusofCNA
By Vincent Tan
25 Oct 2020 06:46PM(Updated: 25 Oct 2020 07:20PM)
Bookmark
KUALA LUMPUR: There is no need to declare a state of emergency in Malaysia at this time, said King Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri'ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah on Sunday (Oct 25), in response to suggestions put forward by Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin regarding the COVID-19 situation.
In a statement issued by the palace, Comptroller of the Royal Household Ahmad Fadil Shamsuddin said that the king "is of the opinion, that at this time, there is no need for His Majesty to implement a state of emergency in the country or any specific areas of the country."
Advertisement
"Even so, His Majesty would like to remind politicians to immediately stop all politicking that could disrupt the stability of the government," the statement said.
"Al-Sultan Abdullah is also of the opinion that there is no need for Members of Parliament to continue their irresponsible actions that may jeopardize the stability of the existing Government," Mr Ahmad Fadhil added.
The statement added that the National Budget, which will be tabled in Parliament in November, "is very important to the people in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic and reviving the country's economy".
"Therefore, financial allocation is very much needed by frontline staff to undergo their duties and responsibilities."
Advertisement
The announcement was made after the king met other Malay rulers earlier in the day to discuss the suggestions put forward by Mr Muhyiddin.
Article 150 of the Constitution stipulates that the Malaysian king may issue a proclamation of emergency, upon the advice of the prime minister, if he is satisfied that a grave emergency exists whereby the security, economic life or public order is threatened.
COVID-19 cases in Malaysia have now surged to more than 25,000, with a record daily jump of 1,228 new cases reported on Saturday.
On Friday, Mr Muhyiddin had chaired a special Cabinet meeting in Putrajaya. Following that, he sought an audience with the king at the latter's palace in Kuantan, Pahang.
The king said on Saturday that he would meet with the other Malay rulers to discuss the suggestions put forward by the prime minister.
A car believed to be carrying Malaysian Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin arriving at Istana Abdulaziz in Kuantan, Pahang on Oct 23, 2020 for an audience with King Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri’ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah. (Photo: Bernama)
Commenting on the king's meeting with the other rulers, Mr Ahmad Fadhil said: "After considering the request (from the prime minister) and discussing with the Malay rulers, and considering the situation of the country, Al-Sultan Abdullah felt the current government has managed to deal with this pandemic well and effectively.
"His Majesty strongly believes in the ability of the Government under the leadership of the Prime Minister to continue to implement policies and enforcement actions to curb the symptoms of the COVID-19 epidemic from continuing to spread."
Rumours that Mr Muhyiddin wanted to impose a state of emergency had prompted opposition leaders to condemn the proposal.
Opposition leader and Parti Keadilan Rakyat president Anwar Ibrahim has said that the proposal would curb the parliamentary process.
"Today, we have a government which lacks legitimacy, and which knows it would fail to demonstrate majority support in parliament, and is using the COVID-19 crisis as an excuse to justify its abuse of power," the opposition leader said in a statement on Friday.
Mr Anwar, who leads the Pakatan Harapan (PH) bloc in parliament against Mr Muhyiddin's Perikatan Nasional (PN) government, also strongly advised the latter to consider the legacy of his actions.
The Malaysian parliament is set to reconvene on Nov 2, with the tabling of next year's budget on Nov 6. Moreover, polling for Batu Sapi by-election in Sabah has been set for Dec 5.
In March, the rising case number had compelled the government to institute a nationwide movement control order (MCO) to combat the spread of the coronavirus.
It was eased into a conditional MCO (CMCO) in early May and a recovery MCO in June as case numbers began to fall, while targeted enhanced MCO was applied at areas with local surges.
READ: Malaysian opposition politicians condemn possible emergency measures amid speculation
However, there has been a sharp rise in cases following the conclusion of the Sabah state election as a result of an outbreak at a Lahad Datu lock-up. Currently, the states of Selangor and Sabah, and the federal territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya have been placed under CMCO again.
Meanwhile, political drama has dragged on in the country, with Mr Anwar claiming he had a convincing majority to take over the government.
On Wednesday, the United Malay National Organisation (UMNO), which is part of Mr Muhyiddin's government, called for a "political ceasefire" in order to focus efforts on combatting the plague.
Previously, the party had been agitating for a fairer redistribution of government positions and ministerial posts as it has the largest number of Members of Parliament in the ruling Perikatan Nasional (PN) government.
Unconstitutional - You Cannot Proclaim A State Of Emergency Without The Consent Of Parliament
Unconstitutional - You Cannot Proclaim A State Of Emergency Without The Consent Of Parliament
24 October 2020
Remember the halcyon days at the start of the year when Malaysia had seen a peaceful transition of power and was governed by the ruling majority in an elected government?
The people responsible for the up-turning of that proper state of affairs (by deserting the parties they were elected to support) are currently the ones calling for authoritarian powers to deal with a political crisis that is entirely of their own making.
They even admit there is no real ‘Emergency’ except with regard to their own survival since they still don’t have the majority needed to command Parliament and pass the budget. Covid is merely window-dressing, which they are using to claim that Parliament must be sidelined as the only alternative is an election during the pandemic.
That is a lie, and to avoid being shown up they are refusing to allow Parliament to sit, which would enable others to demonstrate they have the majority instead.
No, they claim, there has first to be an election. But, thanks to the wonderful gift of Covid which these coup mongers totally ignored when they unleashed their rebel plot right at the start of the pandemic, they claim an election cannot be held.
This despite the fact they just did so in East Malaysia, having equally destabilised the state of Sabah through their illegal rebel activities, buying over state MPs. Their negligent method of campaigning during this unnecessarily destabilised situation appears to have created a spike of cases in the state. It didn’t stop them.
The largest democracy in the world is presently also conducting an election, despite a far worse pandemic, because the liberty and upholding of the Constitution that Malaysia’s coup mongers are so keen to cast aside are precious hard won rights that people fail to stand up for at their darkest peril.
Azmin and Moo would rather just be given the opportunity to rule as they like without tiresome legal constraints and with a handy military to back them up – who thinks they will give that up when Covid is gone? States of Emergency, especially those of the political kind as opposed to the genuine kind, have a habit of extending forever. Crooks can’t risk retirement.
The ‘official’ announcements of the past 24 hours have said it all. The illegitimate minority government led by the rebel duo have ‘explained’ they need their emergency powers to ram through a budget and rule (a.k.a. plunder) without Parliament because of Covid.
On the other hand, the announcements say, the Covid is not so bad that anyone will have to change the way they are presently going about their business under the restrictions in place. Malaysia has recorded a mere 204 deaths across the year, which is less than other countries by far and many other conditions that receive relatively little attention.
According to reports PN are openly admitting this is merely a ‘stay at home order’ for Parliament and no one else:
an article posted on the PN backbenchers club website described the emergency declaration as a “health emergency” to address rising Covid-19 cases …
“However, the public will not have to worry. This is not a stay-at-home order. They can still leave their homes to buy necessities on condition that they follow government guidelines,” [not even a real health emergency – Malaysiakini]
It is blatantly apparent that the coup mongers have embraced Covid merely because of the opportunities it has afforded to crack down, cover up and cling on to power. Malaysians know that because of the haughty way in which these politicians have ignored the rules themselves and failed to concern themselves with the tragic consequences of poorly implemented policies for some of the most vulnerable communities which rescue measures have not reached.
The rebel coup leader, Muhyiddin Yassin, also known as the unelected ‘PM8′, spent a lengthy couple of hours with the Agong yesterday begging him to agree to plunge his country into a bogus State of Emergency, so that he and his rag tag coalition of MPs (practically all of whom have been given Cabinet posts and are thoroughly enjoying it) can avoid testing their legitimacy.
In a most sinister move this minority political leader was also accompanied by the Chief of the Armed Forces. The message is clear – Muhyiddin and Azmin are ready to govern by force, despite the total absence of a foreign threat and total absence (so far) of street protests of any kind as patient Malaysians have kept their growing anger to themselves out of respect for the present health situation.
Even the Agong, who has favoured Muhyiddin for months, granting him the opportunity to form a government when he neither lead a political party nor held a majority support. The Agong has refused to see major party leaders to discuss Anwar’s more credible bid to run the country, under the guise of Covid, whilst entertaining others all the same… including Muhyiddin yesterday.
Now, the Agong is rightly wavering. To agree to reject the calling of Parliament and to call a State of Emergency in order to prop up a fallen political leader, granting him authoritarian and military powers, would be a decision with the gravest of political consequences.
If the Agong were to agree to it then he will have moved to nip Malaysia’s move to genuine political democracy in the bud and he will have shown it for a sham. He will have also abused his position under the Constitution supplanting the abuse of power in place of the rule of law.
He has indicated he wants to discuss the matter with his fellow Council of Rulers, but that is not how the country is set up. The Sultans of Malaysia may bask in fantastic wealth that has somehow arrived in their pockets instead of the pockets of their subjects and they may consider themselves hugely influential and are of course tied up in all the profitable businesses of their states. However, their position under the law is clear cut – they are constitutional rulers in a parliamentary democracy.
If the Council of Rulers were to agree to interfere in such a way and connive in the abuse of the Constitution by assisting in the calling of a bogus ‘State of Emergency’ to prop up a failing illegitimate regime that might well have set out to appeal to their various business interests, it is fairly certain that history will not favour those self same rulers in the longer term.
Either a furious public will punish them or their descendants by consigning them to constitutional irrelevance at a later date… or worse, the forces they will have unleashed will not appreciate rivals in the driving seat. Dictators soon elbow aside kings or stick them as rubber stamps on top of military governments.
So grave has this situation now become that a rare voice has now spoken out in this crisis. The former Attorney General, Tommy Thomas, who had brought objectivity and decency to the role which he immediately resigned following the appointment of ‘PM8,’ has till now preserved a largely silent position, giving space to his successors.
However, today he has laid out the legal facts about this race to grab emergency powers to by-pass Parliament. The reason? It is simply unconstitutional and a gross violation of the laws of the country.
He begins “I have since March scrupulously adhered to the convention that it is not proper for a former public officer to comment on the merits or demerits of policies and decisions made by his successor. But last night’s announcement that the Prime Minister requested the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to declare a national Emergency imposes a responsibility on me not to remain silent.”
And his advice to the Agong is unremitting. Do not fall for the pleas of a Prime Minister seeking to abuse Article 150 of the Constitution on Emergency Powers simply to keep power:
A Proclamation of Emergency under Article 150 of the Federal Constitution has tremendous negative consequences on the nation’s body politic and the exercise of freedoms and liberties by our citizens. Hence, the reluctance to rush into it…. Because the ramifications of an emergency are massive, the Constitution has placed many safeguards against its use. The most obvious and most frequent abuse occurs when the Prime Minister of the day feels threatened as to his security of tenure. Hence, checks and balances are built into Article 150….
READ THE FULL STATEMENT BY THE FORMER AG TOMMY THOMAS:
Declaring Emergency Would Be Unconstitutional:
Expand text
The Constitution, explains Thomas, required that the Agong has to be persuaded that “a grave emergency exists whereby the security or the economic life or public order in Malaysia is threatened”. For it is he who must issue a Proclamation of Emergency to counter such a threat – not something done lightly or controversially as this would be. The accent is on grave.
Tommy Thomas makes clear the entire country is aware that Malaysia is not in a grave emergency, certainly compared to the 180 other countries in the world who have refrained from states of emergency owing to the pandemic. Malaysians know this is about saving the job of ‘PM8′ and his fellow coup conspirators in office:
“It is difficult to find a single rational argument to support a case that there is a “grave emergency” today in Malaysia for whatever reason. Covid-19 has been with us since January. When it suits this government, it has boasted about how well they combated and contained the spread of Covid-19. And they have objective grounds to make this claim, having regard to the performance of other countries. Hence, on a relative and comparative scale, Malaysia has handled Covid-19 well. But the same government cannot then claim that overnight, Covid-19 has became so “threatening” that we have a “grave emergency”. However, terrible Covid-19 is in Sabah, it does not warrant the declaration of a national emergency.
6. Although Covid-19 is the publicly stated reason, none of us are fooled. The true reason is that this Prime Minister is not confident that the Budget of his Minister of Finance will be passed by the Dewan Rakyat when voted upon in early December. That would result in a lack of confidence in his government. They must resign then. Hence, the real reason is to ensure the survival of the Prime Minister in office. You reap what you sow. If you assumed power without being elected by the people of Malaysia, the same fate awaits you.
It gets worse, says the former AG, because the Agong is being advised by a Prime Minister who is conflicted. ‘PM8’s advice is not driven by his view of the interests of the country, but by his own self-serving interests:
“You cannot stay in power by stopping others from aping you. That sums up the so-called case for an emergency. It is so self-serving that constitutionally, the Prime Minister is conflicted in seeking a Proclamation of Emergency solely to stay in office. His private interests are in conflict with his public duty.”
However, the real nub of the unconstitutionality of this move is identified absolutely clearly by the AG in pointing out that the constitution demands that any such proclamation by the King MUST be approved by Parliament itself.
The Parliament that ‘PM8′ seeks to suspend using this very proclamation!
A supreme irony is that the Prime Minister and his Finance Minister desire Parliament to be suspended, and for the Budget to be enforceable by executive action. This again would be unconstitutional because it would violate 3 sub-articles in Article 150 itself. Thus, Article 150(3) requires the Proclamation to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
Story over. The move to Proclaim a State of Emergency without the support of Parliament is illegal and unconstitutional. The Agong needs to recall Parliament to sort out this imposter and his crew of unelected opportunists, who have plundered and abused their roles under the cover of Covid for very many months, and return to a majority government.
He needs to begin by doing what he ought to have done in March, which was to offer the opportunity to form a government to the party leader with the most support. That was not ‘PM8′ who was not a party leader and who had no support. It was and remains Anwar Ibrahim.
Moo must step aside along with his shameless side-kick Azmin Ali and stop running this wrecking ball through the liberties of the Malaysian people.
Subscribe to our mailing list
Unconstitutional - You Cannot Proclaim A State Of Emergency Without The Consent Of Parliament
24 October 2020
Remember the halcyon days at the start of the year when Malaysia had seen a peaceful transition of power and was governed by the ruling majority in an elected government?
The people responsible for the up-turning of that proper state of affairs (by deserting the parties they were elected to support) are currently the ones calling for authoritarian powers to deal with a political crisis that is entirely of their own making.
They even admit there is no real ‘Emergency’ except with regard to their own survival since they still don’t have the majority needed to command Parliament and pass the budget. Covid is merely window-dressing, which they are using to claim that Parliament must be sidelined as the only alternative is an election during the pandemic.
That is a lie, and to avoid being shown up they are refusing to allow Parliament to sit, which would enable others to demonstrate they have the majority instead.
No, they claim, there has first to be an election. But, thanks to the wonderful gift of Covid which these coup mongers totally ignored when they unleashed their rebel plot right at the start of the pandemic, they claim an election cannot be held.
This despite the fact they just did so in East Malaysia, having equally destabilised the state of Sabah through their illegal rebel activities, buying over state MPs. Their negligent method of campaigning during this unnecessarily destabilised situation appears to have created a spike of cases in the state. It didn’t stop them.
The largest democracy in the world is presently also conducting an election, despite a far worse pandemic, because the liberty and upholding of the Constitution that Malaysia’s coup mongers are so keen to cast aside are precious hard won rights that people fail to stand up for at their darkest peril.
Azmin and Moo would rather just be given the opportunity to rule as they like without tiresome legal constraints and with a handy military to back them up – who thinks they will give that up when Covid is gone? States of Emergency, especially those of the political kind as opposed to the genuine kind, have a habit of extending forever. Crooks can’t risk retirement.
The ‘official’ announcements of the past 24 hours have said it all. The illegitimate minority government led by the rebel duo have ‘explained’ they need their emergency powers to ram through a budget and rule (a.k.a. plunder) without Parliament because of Covid.
On the other hand, the announcements say, the Covid is not so bad that anyone will have to change the way they are presently going about their business under the restrictions in place. Malaysia has recorded a mere 204 deaths across the year, which is less than other countries by far and many other conditions that receive relatively little attention.
According to reports PN are openly admitting this is merely a ‘stay at home order’ for Parliament and no one else:
an article posted on the PN backbenchers club website described the emergency declaration as a “health emergency” to address rising Covid-19 cases …
“However, the public will not have to worry. This is not a stay-at-home order. They can still leave their homes to buy necessities on condition that they follow government guidelines,” [not even a real health emergency – Malaysiakini]
It is blatantly apparent that the coup mongers have embraced Covid merely because of the opportunities it has afforded to crack down, cover up and cling on to power. Malaysians know that because of the haughty way in which these politicians have ignored the rules themselves and failed to concern themselves with the tragic consequences of poorly implemented policies for some of the most vulnerable communities which rescue measures have not reached.
The rebel coup leader, Muhyiddin Yassin, also known as the unelected ‘PM8′, spent a lengthy couple of hours with the Agong yesterday begging him to agree to plunge his country into a bogus State of Emergency, so that he and his rag tag coalition of MPs (practically all of whom have been given Cabinet posts and are thoroughly enjoying it) can avoid testing their legitimacy.
In a most sinister move this minority political leader was also accompanied by the Chief of the Armed Forces. The message is clear – Muhyiddin and Azmin are ready to govern by force, despite the total absence of a foreign threat and total absence (so far) of street protests of any kind as patient Malaysians have kept their growing anger to themselves out of respect for the present health situation.
Even the Agong, who has favoured Muhyiddin for months, granting him the opportunity to form a government when he neither lead a political party nor held a majority support. The Agong has refused to see major party leaders to discuss Anwar’s more credible bid to run the country, under the guise of Covid, whilst entertaining others all the same… including Muhyiddin yesterday.
Now, the Agong is rightly wavering. To agree to reject the calling of Parliament and to call a State of Emergency in order to prop up a fallen political leader, granting him authoritarian and military powers, would be a decision with the gravest of political consequences.
If the Agong were to agree to it then he will have moved to nip Malaysia’s move to genuine political democracy in the bud and he will have shown it for a sham. He will have also abused his position under the Constitution supplanting the abuse of power in place of the rule of law.
He has indicated he wants to discuss the matter with his fellow Council of Rulers, but that is not how the country is set up. The Sultans of Malaysia may bask in fantastic wealth that has somehow arrived in their pockets instead of the pockets of their subjects and they may consider themselves hugely influential and are of course tied up in all the profitable businesses of their states. However, their position under the law is clear cut – they are constitutional rulers in a parliamentary democracy.
If the Council of Rulers were to agree to interfere in such a way and connive in the abuse of the Constitution by assisting in the calling of a bogus ‘State of Emergency’ to prop up a failing illegitimate regime that might well have set out to appeal to their various business interests, it is fairly certain that history will not favour those self same rulers in the longer term.
Either a furious public will punish them or their descendants by consigning them to constitutional irrelevance at a later date… or worse, the forces they will have unleashed will not appreciate rivals in the driving seat. Dictators soon elbow aside kings or stick them as rubber stamps on top of military governments.
So grave has this situation now become that a rare voice has now spoken out in this crisis. The former Attorney General, Tommy Thomas, who had brought objectivity and decency to the role which he immediately resigned following the appointment of ‘PM8,’ has till now preserved a largely silent position, giving space to his successors.
However, today he has laid out the legal facts about this race to grab emergency powers to by-pass Parliament. The reason? It is simply unconstitutional and a gross violation of the laws of the country.
He begins “I have since March scrupulously adhered to the convention that it is not proper for a former public officer to comment on the merits or demerits of policies and decisions made by his successor. But last night’s announcement that the Prime Minister requested the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to declare a national Emergency imposes a responsibility on me not to remain silent.”
And his advice to the Agong is unremitting. Do not fall for the pleas of a Prime Minister seeking to abuse Article 150 of the Constitution on Emergency Powers simply to keep power:
A Proclamation of Emergency under Article 150 of the Federal Constitution has tremendous negative consequences on the nation’s body politic and the exercise of freedoms and liberties by our citizens. Hence, the reluctance to rush into it…. Because the ramifications of an emergency are massive, the Constitution has placed many safeguards against its use. The most obvious and most frequent abuse occurs when the Prime Minister of the day feels threatened as to his security of tenure. Hence, checks and balances are built into Article 150….
READ THE FULL STATEMENT BY THE FORMER AG TOMMY THOMAS:
Declaring Emergency Would Be Unconstitutional:
Expand text
The Constitution, explains Thomas, required that the Agong has to be persuaded that “a grave emergency exists whereby the security or the economic life or public order in Malaysia is threatened”. For it is he who must issue a Proclamation of Emergency to counter such a threat – not something done lightly or controversially as this would be. The accent is on grave.
Tommy Thomas makes clear the entire country is aware that Malaysia is not in a grave emergency, certainly compared to the 180 other countries in the world who have refrained from states of emergency owing to the pandemic. Malaysians know this is about saving the job of ‘PM8′ and his fellow coup conspirators in office:
“It is difficult to find a single rational argument to support a case that there is a “grave emergency” today in Malaysia for whatever reason. Covid-19 has been with us since January. When it suits this government, it has boasted about how well they combated and contained the spread of Covid-19. And they have objective grounds to make this claim, having regard to the performance of other countries. Hence, on a relative and comparative scale, Malaysia has handled Covid-19 well. But the same government cannot then claim that overnight, Covid-19 has became so “threatening” that we have a “grave emergency”. However, terrible Covid-19 is in Sabah, it does not warrant the declaration of a national emergency.
6. Although Covid-19 is the publicly stated reason, none of us are fooled. The true reason is that this Prime Minister is not confident that the Budget of his Minister of Finance will be passed by the Dewan Rakyat when voted upon in early December. That would result in a lack of confidence in his government. They must resign then. Hence, the real reason is to ensure the survival of the Prime Minister in office. You reap what you sow. If you assumed power without being elected by the people of Malaysia, the same fate awaits you.
It gets worse, says the former AG, because the Agong is being advised by a Prime Minister who is conflicted. ‘PM8’s advice is not driven by his view of the interests of the country, but by his own self-serving interests:
“You cannot stay in power by stopping others from aping you. That sums up the so-called case for an emergency. It is so self-serving that constitutionally, the Prime Minister is conflicted in seeking a Proclamation of Emergency solely to stay in office. His private interests are in conflict with his public duty.”
However, the real nub of the unconstitutionality of this move is identified absolutely clearly by the AG in pointing out that the constitution demands that any such proclamation by the King MUST be approved by Parliament itself.
The Parliament that ‘PM8′ seeks to suspend using this very proclamation!
A supreme irony is that the Prime Minister and his Finance Minister desire Parliament to be suspended, and for the Budget to be enforceable by executive action. This again would be unconstitutional because it would violate 3 sub-articles in Article 150 itself. Thus, Article 150(3) requires the Proclamation to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
Story over. The move to Proclaim a State of Emergency without the support of Parliament is illegal and unconstitutional. The Agong needs to recall Parliament to sort out this imposter and his crew of unelected opportunists, who have plundered and abused their roles under the cover of Covid for very many months, and return to a majority government.
He needs to begin by doing what he ought to have done in March, which was to offer the opportunity to form a government to the party leader with the most support. That was not ‘PM8′ who was not a party leader and who had no support. It was and remains Anwar Ibrahim.
Moo must step aside along with his shameless side-kick Azmin Ali and stop running this wrecking ball through the liberties of the Malaysian people.
Subscribe to our mailing list
The Agong’s emergency declaration powers: A look at ‘discretion’, ‘advice’ and history from a legal perspective | Malay Mail
The Yang di-Pertuan Agong Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri’ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah officiates the opening of the first meeting of the third session of the 14th Parliament in Kuala Lumpur May 18, 2020. — Bernama pic
The Yang di-Pertuan Agong Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri’ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah officiates the opening of the first meeting of the third session of the 14th Parliament in Kuala Lumpur May 18, 2020. — Bernama pic
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 29 — The Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s decision last Sunday to reject the prime minister’s request to declare a state of emergency in Malaysia has cast the spotlight on the King’s role under a rarely-used provision in the Federal Constitution.
Even after the Agong’s decision not to declare an emergency, discussion on the topic continued with Dewan Negara Speaker Tan Sri Rais Yatim suggesting on Twitter on Monday that Article 40 and Article 40(1A) under the Federal Constitution had not been complied with.
The Article 40(1A) that he had cited referred to the need for the Agong to accept and act on advice when carrying out his functions under the Constitution or federal laws.
But is there really a straightforward answer? Malay Mail spoke to several constitutional lawyers, who shared their views from a legal perspective on the interpretation of constitutional provisions, past decisions by the courts and even historical background.
The two main laws
This issue mainly involves the Federal Constitution’s Article 150(1) which touches on the proclamation or declaration of emergency, and Article 40(1) which revolves around the Agong acting on advice.
Article 150(1) states: “If the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is satisfied that a grave emergency exists whereby the security, or the economic life, or public order in the Federation or any part thereof is threatened, he may issue a Proclamation of Emergency making therein a declaration to that effect.”
Article 40(1) states: “In the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or federal law the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet, except as otherwise provided by this Constitution; but shall be entitled, at his request, to any information concerning the government of the Federation which is available to the Cabinet.”
Lawyer Nizam Bashir speaks to reporters at the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya June 25, 2019. — Picture by Miera Zulyana
Lawyer Nizam Bashir speaks to reporters at the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya June 25, 2019. — Picture by Miera Zulyana
Discretion to declare emergency
When contacted, lawyer Nizam Bashir pointed out that the Agong is to act in accordance with advice as provided for under Article 40, but at the same time noted that the Agong need not act in accordance with advice if the Federal Constitution states otherwise.
Highlighting the way Article 150(1) is worded, Nizam said this is arguably one of the instances where the Agong has discretion to not act on the Cabinet’s advice.
He noted that the words “satisfied” and “may” in Article 150(1) are “suggestive of there being a discretion on the part of the Agong when it comes to issuing a Proclamation of Emergency”.
Beyond that, Nizam also highlighted a constitutional provision and a previous court decision which both said that a decision by the Agong on whether to declare an emergency cannot be reviewed or challenged in the courts.
Nizam was referring to Article 150(8) which states that the satisfaction of the Agong under Article 150(1) shall be “final and conclusive and shall not be challenged or called into question in any court on any ground”.
Nizam also referred to the Federal Court’s observations in the case of Stephen Kalong Ningkan v Government of Malaysia [1968] 1 MLJ 119, noting that the country’s highest court essentially held that “it is the King alone who decides whether a state of emergency” — where the security or economic life of the country was threatened — existed and that the King’s judgment on that was non-justiciable, or not reviewable by the courts.
Nizam however said there are “alternative schools of thought as to the exact scope and ambit of Article 150”, including alternative views of the Agong being bound by advice to declare an emergency and also other views that the courts may review a decision to declare an emergency.
Residual discretion?
Former attorney general Tan Sri Tommy Thomas had in a public statement on October 24 noted that the Agong acts on the advice of the prime minister in relation to Article 150 as Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy, but said the King still has “residual discretion” despite the true decision-maker being the prime minister.
“In other words, it is not automatic that every time a prime minister desires a Proclamation, the Agong must agree to it. The Agong is entitled to seek the advice of the Conference of Rulers, or indeed anyone whose advice the Agong values,” Thomas had said, among other things.
Former Court of Appeal judge Tan Sri Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof had in a public statement on October 26 argued that there is a sound constitutional basis for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to reject advice to proclaim an emergency, pointing out among other things the role of the Federal Constitution and the constitutional monarch as part of the system of checks and balances.
Citing the words “is satisfied” and “may” in Article 150(1), Ariff said that this points to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s “residual discretion”, further arguing that there is nothing in either Article 40(1) or 40(1A) to cancel out this residual discretion.
Lawyer Lim Wei Jiet speaks at the ‘Malaysia and Rome Statute’ forum at Universiti Malaya in Kuala Lumpur April 27, 2019. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa
Lawyer Lim Wei Jiet speaks at the ‘Malaysia and Rome Statute’ forum at Universiti Malaya in Kuala Lumpur April 27, 2019. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa
An alternative view
Lawyer Lim Wei Jiet noted that there are differing views equally across the political divide on whether the Agong is bound by advice when it comes to deciding whether to declare an emergency.
“The Agong has to follow the advice of the prime minister to declare the emergency if advised to do so,” he told Malay Mail when providing his view on the law, adding that this position is supported by the Privy Council case of Teh Cheng Poh in the 1970s and the Federal Court’s 2001 decision in the case of Abdul Ghani Ali Ahmad & Others v Public Prosecutor [2001] 3 MLJ 561.
Lim said the Federal Court had in the Abdul Ghani case held that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in acting under Article 150 as a constitutional monarch “must act on the advice of the Cabinet” as provided in Article 40.
Agreeing that the past court decisions meant the Agong would have to follow advice to declare an emergency even if the advice was questionable, improper or insufficient to justify such a declaration, Lim said however that any declaration of emergency can still be challenged in the courts after the declaration is made.
“However, if anyone feels that the prime minister's advice is actuated by bad faith, then the courts can review that declaration of emergency,” Lim said.
In February 2013, constitutional law expert Datuk Shad Saleem Faruqi had in his newspaper column in The Star set out differing legal views on the issue, before concluding that a government with a majority in Parliament has the right to give binding advice to the King in relation to the emergency powers under Article 150.
In the same opinion piece, Shad Saleem had also said there are three possibilities if the government abuses its emergency powers for wrongful purposes, namely a monarch has the option to delay, caution or warn, or refuse to issue the declaration of emergency, or scrutiny by the courts on issues of bad faith.
As for the technical point of whether the prime minister had last Friday actually tendered advice or only made a request to the Agong for an emergency declaration, Lim said it could be argued that the monarch was merely providing his view regardless of the situation.
“Yes, regardless of whether it is ‘advice’ within the meaning of Article 40 or merely a request, the Agong as the constitutional monarch is entitled to give his views that an emergency is not necessary at this stage. The prime minister can nevertheless insist that the Agong follow the advice pursuant to Article 40, in which case the Agong must follow such advice,” Lim said.
As for exceptions to the Agong being bound by the Cabinet’s advice, Lim said Article 40(2) provides three clear instances where the Agong has discretion, including the appointment of a prime minister, the withholding of consent to a request for Parliament’s dissolution, and the calling of a meeting of the Conference of Rulers for matters relating to the rulers’ privileges, position, honours and dignities.
Ultimately, on the point of whether the Agong has discretion or is bound by advice when it comes to declaring an emergency, Lim highlighted that there are differing views such as those by Mohamad Ariff, and said: “It is not an open and shut matter.”
Lawyer K. Shanmuga speaks to reporters at the Federal Court in Putrajaya February 13, 2020. ― Picture by Choo Choy May
Lawyer K. Shanmuga speaks to reporters at the Federal Court in Putrajaya February 13, 2020. ― Picture by Choo Choy May
Historical insights
Lawyer K. Shanmuga said the Federal Constitution as it now stands would appear to show that the Agong’s satisfaction that a grave emergency exists is subject to Article 40, “which states that all actions or decisions of the Agong (other than those expressly excluded in the Constitution or written law) are exercised on the advice of the Cabinet and the Agong is bound to act on that advice”.
Based on the statements issued by Istana Negara on October 24 and 25, Shanmuga said it would however appear that the Cabinet did not give such “advice” for an emergency to be declared, but had merely made proposals and suggestions including for a declaration of an emergency.
“Thus, the question of whether advice can be rejected is to my mind still academic at the moment. The prime minister and the Agong seem to have adroitly avoided this loaded Constitutional question, which is perhaps as it should be,” he told Malay Mail.
Shanmuga said the academic question of whether it was intended for the Agong to have “residual discretion” through the use of the word “satisfaction” in Article 150 requires further study, in light of the complex legislative history of Article 150 — which has seen multiple revisions.
“We should not forget that the version of Article 150 we have now has been amended numerous times.
“In 1979, the Privy Council said quite clearly that the proclamation of emergency is something that is done by the Cabinet and not the Agong, and therefore the courts can look into the legality of such a proclamation. Immediately after that and until 1981, therefore, numerous amendments were made to restore the state of emergency that was then in force and to prevent a judicial review of proclamations of emergency.
“In 1983, the Constitution was amended so that the words ‘Agong’ were removed from Article 150 and replaced with ‘prime minister’ i.e. it would be the prime minister who proclaims the emergency. In 1984, however, the Constitution was amended again and Article 150 was changed back again to the Agong being the one who makes the proclamation.
“I think any comment on this matter, therefore, should also take into consideration all of this legislative history in order to fully explain Article 150,” he said.
Based on footnotes in the Federal Constitution on Article 150, the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1983 had resulted in multiple changes to various parts of the provision including Article 150(1).
The 1983 amendment resulted in the replacement of the first reference to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong with the words “prime minister” and the substitution of the word “may” in Article 150(1) to read: “If the prime minister is satisfied that a grave emergency exists... he shall advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong accordingly and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall then issue a Proclamation of Emergency.” This amendment came into force on December 16, 1983.
The same footnotes in the Federal Constitution however stated that Article 150 was again amended by the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1984 — in force from January 20, 1984 — to restore it to how it was originally worded before the 1983 amendments.
This means it has been restored to how it currently appears, with Article 150(1) for example now requiring the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to be the one satisfied that there exists a grave emergency and stating that the King “may” — instead of “shall then” — issue a declaration of emergency.
Shanmuga concluded: “For now, I am just glad that there is no emergency. But I await the prime minister and Cabinet’s resignation: Since they even contemplated declaring an emergency and the people were forced to rely on a hereditary monarchy to save our democracy, something is very wrong with the Cabinet we now have.”
The Yang di-Pertuan Agong Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri’ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah officiates the opening of the first meeting of the third session of the 14th Parliament in Kuala Lumpur May 18, 2020. — Bernama pic
The Yang di-Pertuan Agong Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri’ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah officiates the opening of the first meeting of the third session of the 14th Parliament in Kuala Lumpur May 18, 2020. — Bernama pic
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 29 — The Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s decision last Sunday to reject the prime minister’s request to declare a state of emergency in Malaysia has cast the spotlight on the King’s role under a rarely-used provision in the Federal Constitution.
Even after the Agong’s decision not to declare an emergency, discussion on the topic continued with Dewan Negara Speaker Tan Sri Rais Yatim suggesting on Twitter on Monday that Article 40 and Article 40(1A) under the Federal Constitution had not been complied with.
The Article 40(1A) that he had cited referred to the need for the Agong to accept and act on advice when carrying out his functions under the Constitution or federal laws.
But is there really a straightforward answer? Malay Mail spoke to several constitutional lawyers, who shared their views from a legal perspective on the interpretation of constitutional provisions, past decisions by the courts and even historical background.
The two main laws
This issue mainly involves the Federal Constitution’s Article 150(1) which touches on the proclamation or declaration of emergency, and Article 40(1) which revolves around the Agong acting on advice.
Article 150(1) states: “If the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is satisfied that a grave emergency exists whereby the security, or the economic life, or public order in the Federation or any part thereof is threatened, he may issue a Proclamation of Emergency making therein a declaration to that effect.”
Article 40(1) states: “In the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or federal law the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet, except as otherwise provided by this Constitution; but shall be entitled, at his request, to any information concerning the government of the Federation which is available to the Cabinet.”
Lawyer Nizam Bashir speaks to reporters at the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya June 25, 2019. — Picture by Miera Zulyana
Lawyer Nizam Bashir speaks to reporters at the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya June 25, 2019. — Picture by Miera Zulyana
Discretion to declare emergency
When contacted, lawyer Nizam Bashir pointed out that the Agong is to act in accordance with advice as provided for under Article 40, but at the same time noted that the Agong need not act in accordance with advice if the Federal Constitution states otherwise.
Highlighting the way Article 150(1) is worded, Nizam said this is arguably one of the instances where the Agong has discretion to not act on the Cabinet’s advice.
He noted that the words “satisfied” and “may” in Article 150(1) are “suggestive of there being a discretion on the part of the Agong when it comes to issuing a Proclamation of Emergency”.
Beyond that, Nizam also highlighted a constitutional provision and a previous court decision which both said that a decision by the Agong on whether to declare an emergency cannot be reviewed or challenged in the courts.
Nizam was referring to Article 150(8) which states that the satisfaction of the Agong under Article 150(1) shall be “final and conclusive and shall not be challenged or called into question in any court on any ground”.
Nizam also referred to the Federal Court’s observations in the case of Stephen Kalong Ningkan v Government of Malaysia [1968] 1 MLJ 119, noting that the country’s highest court essentially held that “it is the King alone who decides whether a state of emergency” — where the security or economic life of the country was threatened — existed and that the King’s judgment on that was non-justiciable, or not reviewable by the courts.
Nizam however said there are “alternative schools of thought as to the exact scope and ambit of Article 150”, including alternative views of the Agong being bound by advice to declare an emergency and also other views that the courts may review a decision to declare an emergency.
Residual discretion?
Former attorney general Tan Sri Tommy Thomas had in a public statement on October 24 noted that the Agong acts on the advice of the prime minister in relation to Article 150 as Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy, but said the King still has “residual discretion” despite the true decision-maker being the prime minister.
“In other words, it is not automatic that every time a prime minister desires a Proclamation, the Agong must agree to it. The Agong is entitled to seek the advice of the Conference of Rulers, or indeed anyone whose advice the Agong values,” Thomas had said, among other things.
Former Court of Appeal judge Tan Sri Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof had in a public statement on October 26 argued that there is a sound constitutional basis for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to reject advice to proclaim an emergency, pointing out among other things the role of the Federal Constitution and the constitutional monarch as part of the system of checks and balances.
Citing the words “is satisfied” and “may” in Article 150(1), Ariff said that this points to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s “residual discretion”, further arguing that there is nothing in either Article 40(1) or 40(1A) to cancel out this residual discretion.
Lawyer Lim Wei Jiet speaks at the ‘Malaysia and Rome Statute’ forum at Universiti Malaya in Kuala Lumpur April 27, 2019. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa
Lawyer Lim Wei Jiet speaks at the ‘Malaysia and Rome Statute’ forum at Universiti Malaya in Kuala Lumpur April 27, 2019. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa
An alternative view
Lawyer Lim Wei Jiet noted that there are differing views equally across the political divide on whether the Agong is bound by advice when it comes to deciding whether to declare an emergency.
“The Agong has to follow the advice of the prime minister to declare the emergency if advised to do so,” he told Malay Mail when providing his view on the law, adding that this position is supported by the Privy Council case of Teh Cheng Poh in the 1970s and the Federal Court’s 2001 decision in the case of Abdul Ghani Ali Ahmad & Others v Public Prosecutor [2001] 3 MLJ 561.
Lim said the Federal Court had in the Abdul Ghani case held that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in acting under Article 150 as a constitutional monarch “must act on the advice of the Cabinet” as provided in Article 40.
Agreeing that the past court decisions meant the Agong would have to follow advice to declare an emergency even if the advice was questionable, improper or insufficient to justify such a declaration, Lim said however that any declaration of emergency can still be challenged in the courts after the declaration is made.
“However, if anyone feels that the prime minister's advice is actuated by bad faith, then the courts can review that declaration of emergency,” Lim said.
In February 2013, constitutional law expert Datuk Shad Saleem Faruqi had in his newspaper column in The Star set out differing legal views on the issue, before concluding that a government with a majority in Parliament has the right to give binding advice to the King in relation to the emergency powers under Article 150.
In the same opinion piece, Shad Saleem had also said there are three possibilities if the government abuses its emergency powers for wrongful purposes, namely a monarch has the option to delay, caution or warn, or refuse to issue the declaration of emergency, or scrutiny by the courts on issues of bad faith.
As for the technical point of whether the prime minister had last Friday actually tendered advice or only made a request to the Agong for an emergency declaration, Lim said it could be argued that the monarch was merely providing his view regardless of the situation.
“Yes, regardless of whether it is ‘advice’ within the meaning of Article 40 or merely a request, the Agong as the constitutional monarch is entitled to give his views that an emergency is not necessary at this stage. The prime minister can nevertheless insist that the Agong follow the advice pursuant to Article 40, in which case the Agong must follow such advice,” Lim said.
As for exceptions to the Agong being bound by the Cabinet’s advice, Lim said Article 40(2) provides three clear instances where the Agong has discretion, including the appointment of a prime minister, the withholding of consent to a request for Parliament’s dissolution, and the calling of a meeting of the Conference of Rulers for matters relating to the rulers’ privileges, position, honours and dignities.
Ultimately, on the point of whether the Agong has discretion or is bound by advice when it comes to declaring an emergency, Lim highlighted that there are differing views such as those by Mohamad Ariff, and said: “It is not an open and shut matter.”
Lawyer K. Shanmuga speaks to reporters at the Federal Court in Putrajaya February 13, 2020. ― Picture by Choo Choy May
Lawyer K. Shanmuga speaks to reporters at the Federal Court in Putrajaya February 13, 2020. ― Picture by Choo Choy May
Historical insights
Lawyer K. Shanmuga said the Federal Constitution as it now stands would appear to show that the Agong’s satisfaction that a grave emergency exists is subject to Article 40, “which states that all actions or decisions of the Agong (other than those expressly excluded in the Constitution or written law) are exercised on the advice of the Cabinet and the Agong is bound to act on that advice”.
Based on the statements issued by Istana Negara on October 24 and 25, Shanmuga said it would however appear that the Cabinet did not give such “advice” for an emergency to be declared, but had merely made proposals and suggestions including for a declaration of an emergency.
“Thus, the question of whether advice can be rejected is to my mind still academic at the moment. The prime minister and the Agong seem to have adroitly avoided this loaded Constitutional question, which is perhaps as it should be,” he told Malay Mail.
Shanmuga said the academic question of whether it was intended for the Agong to have “residual discretion” through the use of the word “satisfaction” in Article 150 requires further study, in light of the complex legislative history of Article 150 — which has seen multiple revisions.
“We should not forget that the version of Article 150 we have now has been amended numerous times.
“In 1979, the Privy Council said quite clearly that the proclamation of emergency is something that is done by the Cabinet and not the Agong, and therefore the courts can look into the legality of such a proclamation. Immediately after that and until 1981, therefore, numerous amendments were made to restore the state of emergency that was then in force and to prevent a judicial review of proclamations of emergency.
“In 1983, the Constitution was amended so that the words ‘Agong’ were removed from Article 150 and replaced with ‘prime minister’ i.e. it would be the prime minister who proclaims the emergency. In 1984, however, the Constitution was amended again and Article 150 was changed back again to the Agong being the one who makes the proclamation.
“I think any comment on this matter, therefore, should also take into consideration all of this legislative history in order to fully explain Article 150,” he said.
Based on footnotes in the Federal Constitution on Article 150, the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1983 had resulted in multiple changes to various parts of the provision including Article 150(1).
The 1983 amendment resulted in the replacement of the first reference to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong with the words “prime minister” and the substitution of the word “may” in Article 150(1) to read: “If the prime minister is satisfied that a grave emergency exists... he shall advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong accordingly and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall then issue a Proclamation of Emergency.” This amendment came into force on December 16, 1983.
The same footnotes in the Federal Constitution however stated that Article 150 was again amended by the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1984 — in force from January 20, 1984 — to restore it to how it was originally worded before the 1983 amendments.
This means it has been restored to how it currently appears, with Article 150(1) for example now requiring the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to be the one satisfied that there exists a grave emergency and stating that the King “may” — instead of “shall then” — issue a declaration of emergency.
Shanmuga concluded: “For now, I am just glad that there is no emergency. But I await the prime minister and Cabinet’s resignation: Since they even contemplated declaring an emergency and the people were forced to rely on a hereditary monarchy to save our democracy, something is very wrong with the Cabinet we now have.”
The days of one big majority party is over. It's now several parties holding the most 20-30% of the seat.It is logically impossible for no group to have the majority. What going on?
Then a coalition govt can be formed with 2 or more parties. That is why it is logically impossible for no one to have a majority.
That's the problem. They suffer from initial snags.just starting to learn how to accommodate all those differences.
Similar threads
