https://nambikaionline.wordpress.com/

https://nambikaionline.wordpress.com/
http://themalayobserver.blogspot.my

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Unprecedented constitutional monarchy to re-enter active politics?

 We, the Rakyat shall not forget what the sultan of Selangor is doing. Time is not an empty space. We shall remember and repay you back in kind for your deeds to the Rakyat. Thank you, your Highness for being our guidance in navigating through this crisis. We would not have been able to do so without you. We all need a closure to this saga and thank you once again for having the power to put an end to it all. We the Rakyat might not be in complete abeyance with your choice of the next MB but who cares. What we want is an end of this circus. So so sorry to have impinge upon your precious time. Let us get rid of State Assemblies as they are playing the role of ceremonial figures rather than vice versa. First Perak and now Selangor! Political sabotage through manipulation.when the Palace declares war on the rakyat. Wan Azizah is the popular candidate for the MB post, having won the Kajang by-election with a resounding majority  Remember there is no escaping from the almighty - tomorrow maybe your last day especially for all those who have erred.Why is there so much HATE and SCORN towards this lady?? What great sin has she committed?? by being the wife of Anuar. Why has she to pay this heavy price?? Must she suffer for any wrong that Anuar committed.Has she not suffered enough bringing up here children and struggling during Anuar's time in prison?? I hope Eternal judgement will be on those who hate and punish her. Just my thoughts on the Selangor MB issue
After so many writing by people and law experts yet the palace had interview 3 others and snub Puan WAN> Its now sure Puan WAN will not be MB. Maybe it AZMIN. If PKR agree with Anwar and Puan Wan then its AZMIN should show his worth.After all 31/2 is no ver long from now.Next election PAs will hae a hard fought battle with DAP gaining more then 15 seats.If PKR solid work more then 13 seats.PAS may have to fight UMNO in all malays seats and maybe lose out by 7 seats.Pr will be able to win more seats after what happen to Puan Wan.People will not forget She was rob of her right esp PAS>HADI.If god willing Puan wan then will again name next MB. I am truely surprise in Malaysia Gender a issue forgetting rule of law n constitution out of the window.SAD DAY for all Malaysian woman.Now PAS woman want higher post not a decorative piece to serve tea.The change will happen that too soon. If PAS selected take the risk of no confidence vote or seek SNAP election which will put PR on greater height
If a precedent is set when a majority-supported candidate is not chosen to be the MB there is no turning back for future decisions for similar situation.PKR and the people may have to accept the inevitability but that doesn’t mean that‘unpopular’ decision will be forgotten.Politicians come and go;it means nothing even if they were insulted,rebuffed or seen to be irreverent,but royalty as an institution is here to stay.Therefore any decision made by the royalty must be carefully taken;especially the one that seems not being with the people,it can slowly erode the support of the institution itself.You don’t see the adverse reaction in short term but as time passes questions may asked of the institution.As younger generation,more educated than their parents,who know not of the history of the sultanates one day may ask the‘pertinent’ question.This important decision to be made by the sultan has future implication not only affecting Selangor state but the institution itself.a majority in the state assembly excluded while three people with no majority is called for interview. Let the show begin. If the person selected accepts the post, let PKR and DAP call for a vote of no confidence and see what happens. It seems the constitution is turned upside down by HRH. Looks like the sultan wans us to return to the feudal system where the sultan has absolute powers.It should be obvious to the Sultan that the three candidates can't command the confidence of the majority. Azmin can command the confidence of the majority only if Anwar supports him. The Sultan interviewing the three candidates is not a scoop. It’s not exclusive. All media should have been informed by the palace. There’s a lack of transparency and accountability.
No matter what, PKR and DAP must not allow PAS to take the M.B post. Its better to have a vote of no confidence and go for a snap election. It appears that PAS has betrayed PAkatan by submitting two PAS names.And it was long planned by UMNO that a PAS member be selected by HRH to be M.B. This will contribute to the inevitable breakup of the Pakatan coalition.No wonder Hadi suddenly make a u turn knowing that if a PAS candidate is selected he will need the support of PKR and DAP. That's why in his speech he warned both PKR and DAP not to betray PAS. Meaning if PAS candidate got selected he expect PKR and DAP to support their candidate.
Just desolve assembly and have fresh election for Selangor. The constitution must be supreme, or else is dog eat dog world. PAS is a real bastard in this issue. PAS can go to hell, will not vote PAS anymore. PAS you think you can rule another state, dream on. You will even lose Kelantan come GE1
One of the disadvantages of being around for a while is that you can’t be easily fooled. That’s the privilege of the young and inexperienced who are often waylaid by hope. Niccolo Machiavelli, the canny philosopher, said that those who deceive will always find those who are ready to be deceived. They are drawn to each other like moths to a flame.
But before I step away from the man who fathered modern political theory, I would like to quote him once more. Even though he lived in 15th century Florence, Machiavelli got the idiom of our politics just right. A promise given was a political necessity of the past, he said; the word broken is a political necessity of the present.But if our past was so great, if our leaders were so wonderful, our culture was so rich, how come we are in such a mess today? How come every time we boast about our achievements, we only wallow in shallow nostalgia? We are constantly copying others or ourselves.

Sultan of Selangor and Khalid
How the soap opera unfolds from here will ultimately depend on how convention has been tempered by the precedent set in 2008 and the wisdom of the Sultan.
The issue  before us is whether the discretion to appoint Dato Seri  Dr. Wan Azizah Wan Ismail is still with HRH Tuanku Sultan of Selangor. University of Malaya Law Professor Gurdial Singh Nijhar says that HRH has little choice but to appoint her as the new Menteri Besar since she commands the support of 43 out of the 56 members of Dewan Undangan Negeri (State Legislative Assembly) in accordance with Article 53(2)(a) of the Constitution of the State of Selangor. In truth, HRH has the option to ask for additional nominees before he makes up his mind. It cannot be ruled out since that is his Royal prerogative.
Selangor Constitution


PAS has wittingly or unwittingly put the Sultan in the delicate position of having to accept either candidate against the provisions of the State Constitution, or go against the majority of the legislative assembly and, by extension, the rakyat. To circumvent the Hobson’s choice above by a dissolution of the legislature would be most unpopular as the house is still overwhelmingly dominated by Pakatan Rakyat, unlike the hung Perak State Assembly in 2009. Even then the house was not dissolved.Put the blame squarely on the hypocrites in PAS for not being able to work under a woman MB. It is a blessing in disguise for exposing PAS for what they really are, a bunch of kampong coconuts masquerading as political leaders in 21st Century Malaysia. There is no place for them here. They should be riding some stinking camels somewhere in Arabia.And if they start taking graven images with their iPhones, (which is forbidden in the Quran), and wave their PAS flags around, (which has the forbidden image of the Moon on it), they are surely bound for Hell.
To complicate matters even more, Section 53.4 of the State Constitution states that, “In appointing a Menteri Besar, His Highness may in his discretion dispense with any provision in this Constitution restricting his choice of a Menteri Besar, if in his opinion it is necessary to do so in order to comply with the provisions of this Article.”
The Hobson’s choice becomes a Gordian knot when Section 53.3 is read in conjunction with Section 53.4, because discretionary powers are granted the Sovereign Ruler to reject any provisions of the constitution in order to fulfil the spirit of the article.

Dr Bari  is of the view that the idea of “discretion” being bandied about by PAS and the public is not an “absolute discretion”. He says that the discretion exercisable by the sovereign ruler should be viewed in the context of democracy and a responsible government, and thus the provisions of the State Constitution still hold true.


“But when the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people. If any of them should happen to propose a scheme of liberty, soberly limited, and defined with proper qualifications, he will be immediately outbid by his competitors, who will produce something more splendidly popular. Suspicions will be raised of his fidelity to his cause. Moderation will be stigmatized as the virtue of cowards; and compromise as the prudence of traitors; until, in hopes of preserving the credit which may enable him to temper, and moderate, on some occasions, the popular leader is obliged to become active in propagating doctrines, and establishing powers, that will afterwards defeat any sober purpose at which he ultimately might have aimed.”

― Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France

Anwar: We respect Sultan's request but PR to stick to Azizah only


On Constitutional MonarchyThe rights to be consulted, to encourage and to warn
Walter Bagehot famously wrote in The English Constitution (1867) that the British monarch has three rights: the rights to be consulted, to encourage and to warn.
“To state the matter shortly, the sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy such as ours, three rights — the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn. And a king of great sense and sagacity would want no others. He would find that his having no others would enable him to use these with singular effect. He would say to his minister: “The responsibility of these measures is upon you. Whatever you think best must be done. Whatever you think best shall have my full and effectual support. But you will observe that for this reason and that reason what you propose to do is bad; for this reason and that reason what you do not propose is better. I do not oppose, it is my duty not to oppose; but observe that I warn.” Supposing the king to be right, and to have what kings often have, the gift of effectual expression, he could not help moving his minister. He might not always turn his course, but he would always trouble his mind.
The disquiet expressed by the palace over remarks regarding the Selangor menteri besar (MB) crisis is perfectly understandable, and to some extent, even justified.

The limits of a monarch’s discretionary powers in a functioning democracy has exercised the minds of many a constitutional lawyer the world over. The debate always intensifies and burnishes when there is intense political contestation; and a party feels that its mandate, so painstakingly won through elections, may be at stake.

Our own courts have several times adjudicated on the legality and propriety of a ruler’s exercise of discretionary power. Malaysian law reports attest to the abundant legal jurisprudence in this regard.



Indeed as recently as 2010, our highest Federal Court in the case of the two MBs – Nizar v Zambry – solemnly pronounced on the limits of a monarch’s discretion; and when and how the royal prerogative in the choice of MB should be properly exercised.
This is the precise question that is presented in the present episode. Not surprisingly then, this has ignited a rather animated debate; in the course of which, no doubt, considerable heat has been generated.

And this is how it should be. As the palace statement, with respect, correctly points out: "The sultan wants someone who will take care of the rakyat's needs and develop Selangor to higher levels".

And what better way to gauge the “rakyat’s needs” than have the rakyat itself provide its feedback – through the media and other recognised channels.

The rakyat chose the party that must govern. And their expectations as to who must helm the government to develop the state “to higher levels” must rank at par with that of the ruler’s.

That’s why an orderly and smooth transition – consonant with respect for the "constitution and established conventions", which is how the Federal Court phrased it in the Nizar case, is vital. And that, precisely, is what is being advanced.

In this context, it may be felt by some that the extension of the tenure of an MB who tendered his resignation on the basis that he had lost the support of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly – may be at odds with conventional practice and our judicial pronouncements.

Our Federal Court said that once this loss of majority confidence is made clear, then resignation must follow; indeed the Chief Judge said if the MB refuses to tender his resignation (as happened in the Perak case) “... the fact remains that the executive council is dissolved (which include the Menteri Besar) on account of the MB losing the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly”.

The Court went on to say: “Therefore, it is not necessary for the DYMM Sultan of Perak to remove Nizar and other members of the executive council”. In short the MB and his exco lose all legitimacy to continue to govern.

The challenging constitutional poser then is: in the light of this clear statement of the law, can the power to govern be extended? Indeed an intriguingly novel question.

Perhaps we can refer then to constitutional conventions established by the country on which our Westminster model of the constitution was crafted.

An authoritative constitutional authority says this, of the practice in England: “In the event of... resignation of the Prime Minister, the governing party would doubtless expedite its election procedures. If there were still to be substantial delay before a successor could be chosen, the Cabinet could be expected to bring forward a minister who would assume temporary leadership of the government, the Queen being invited to confirm his or her authority to act. Otherwise the Queen might call on the deputy Prime Minister or, if there were none, the Minister ranking highest in precedence to take this responsibility”.

Practically, this convention seems to suggest that it may not be quite appropriate to appoint in the interim a person who has lost majority support of the members of the assembly.


For then in whose name does the person rejected by majority of the assembly and the exco, rule?


In the course of a long reign a sagacious king would acquire an experience with which few ministers could contend. The king could say: “Have you referred to the transactions which happened during such and such an administration, I think about fourteen years ago? They afford an instructive example of the bad results which are sure to attend the policy which you propose. You did not at that time take so prominent a part in public life as you now do, and it is possible you do not fully remember all the events. I should recommend you to recur to them, and to discuss them with your older colleagues who took part in them. It is unwise to recommence a policy which so lately worked so ill.” The king would indeed have the advantage which a permanent under-secretary has over his superior the parliamentary secretary — that of having shared in the proceedings of the previous parliamentary secretaries. These proceedings were part of his own life; occupied the best of his thoughts, gave him perhaps anxiety, perhaps pleasure, were commenced in spite of his dissuasion, or were sanctioned by his approval.
The parliamentary secretary vaguely remembers that something was done in the time of some of his predecessors, when he very likely did not know the least or care the least about that sort of public business. He has to begin by learning painfully and imperfectly what the permanent secretary knows by clear and instant memory. No doubt a parliamentary secretary always can, and sometimes does, silence his subordinate by the tacit might of his superior dignity. He says: “I do not think there is much in all that. Many errors were committed at the time you refer to which we need not now discuss.”
A pompous man easily sweeps away the suggestions of those beneath him. But though a minister may so deal with his subordinate, he cannot so deal with his king. The social force of admitted superiority by which he overturned his under-secretary is now not with him, but against him. He has no longer to regard the deferential hints of an acknowledged inferior, but to answer the arguments of a superior to whom he has himself to be respectful. George III in fact knew the forms of public business as well or better than any statesman of his time. If, in addition to his capacity as a man of business and to his industry, he had possessed the higher faculties of a discerning statesman, his influence would have been despotic. The old Constitution of England undoubtedly gave a sort of power to the Crown which our present Constitution does not give. While a majority in parliament was principally purchased by royal patronage, the king was a party to the bargain either with his minister or without his minister. But even under our present constitution a monarch like George III, with high abilities, would possess the greatest influence….
It would be childish to suppose that a conference between a minister and his sovereign can ever be a conference of pure argument. “The divinity which doth hedge a king” may have less sanctity than it had, but it still has much sanctity. No one, or scarcely any one, can argue with a cabinet minister in his own room as well as he would argue with another man in another room. He cannot make his own points as well; he cannot unmake as well the points presented to him. A monarch’s room is worse…. He will not refute the bad arguments of the king as he will refute another man’s bad arguments. He will not state his own best argument effectively and incisively when he knows that the king would not like to hear them. In a nearly balanced argument the king must always have the better, and in politics many most important arguments are nearly balanced. Whenever there was much to be said for the king’s opinion it would have its full weight; whatever was said for the minister’s opinion; would only have a lessened and enfeebled weight.”
To this day, Halsbury’s Laws continues to recognise these rights:

“[The Queen] still has the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn. However, she also has the right to offer, on her own initiative, suggestions and advice to her ministers even when she is obliged in the last resort to accept the formal advice tendered to 
Playfair In Islam, the first point of reference for guidance is the Al Quran. If the signs (ayat) are unambiguous, there is no further need to refer to the Sunnah of our Nabi (SAW) or the Hadis. There are similar analogies in secular systems and institutions. May Allah SWT give us the wisdom for us to be deserving of His ar Rahman and nir Raheem.It is not PAS as a whole, but only Hadi together with his gang of wolves clad in sheep skin are doing the internal sabotage within PAS and PR as instructed by their UMNO boss.PAS must also be reminded that the names that they submitted must have the support of the majority. They just can't simply give 3 names just to satisfy the palace.

after what Pas (and specifically Hadi) has done to destroy PR, you still want to plead with them? I say, lose Selangor (the battle) and win Putrajaya (the war) in the longer term. You have established yourself as the ICON of change for a better Malaysia whether you a free man or otherwise. Don't destroy the hopes and aspirations of the right-thinking rakyat just to keep Selangor. A far superior option is to let the Selangor assembly dissolved and together with DAP test your strength and the impact of the temporary set-back this fiasco has caused the PR coalition (now minus Pas). Better to be a credible opposition (after the snap election in Selangor) than having to compromise on the principles that PR had promised the rakyat. And what makes you think that Pas won't stick the knife into you again when you least expect it in the future if they are still with PR?

No comments:

Post a Comment