It’s not about Khalid Ibrahim any more

By MT Webmaster Last updated Aug 18, 2014

Oh, and if you do not like HRH the Sultan’s choice of new Menteri Besar, you can, yet again, pass a vote of no confidence against this new Menteri Besar. And you can keep doing this every few months until the next GE in 2018 or so, one ousted Menteri Besar after another.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The debate is still raging as to whether Khalid Ibrahim is still legally (or morally) the Menteri Besar of Selangor.

Some same legally ‘yes’ but morally ‘no’. Some say both legally and morally ‘no’. Some say even if he no longer commands the majority in the Selangor state assembly he must be legally or constitutionally removed. And that would be through a vote of no confidence against him in the Selangor state assembly.

Some even quote the Perak Crisis of five years ago as the precedence in which to remove Khalid, while at the same time saying that the way Nizar Jamaluddin, the Perak Menteri Besar, and Pakatan Rakyat, were removed is wrong, even if the court upheld HRH the Sultan of Perak’s decision. After all, say these critics, the court will do what it is told (by the Barisan Nasional government, that is). Hence we cannot trust the court.

This means what happened in Perak is wrong but doing in Selangor what they did in Perak is right.

Different lawyers and legal/constitutional experts have different opinions. That is how lawyers make money — by arguing these differences of opinions in court. If the law is clear then no need to go to court. Only when it is ambiguous and is not clear do we need to go to court and make lawyers rich.

For example, the Constitution says that the Agong shall take the advice of the Prime Minister (or the state rulers shall take the advice of the Menteri Besar).

‘Shall’ here, since the 17th century, means ‘must’, ‘be obliged to’, ‘will’, ‘should’, etc. Hence if the Menteri Besar offers the Sultan any advice then the Sultan has to listen to this advice. Can the Sultan ignore the Menteri Besar’s advice? I am sure all those legal brains I mentioned above will argue that the Sultan has no choice in the matter. He must listen to the Menteri Besar.

So, what did Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim advice HRH the Sultan of Selangor on Monday? We all know the answer to that question. Khalid advised the Sultan that he still has the majority confidence of the House. So, acting on this advice, the Sultan told Khalid to stay on until further developments.

And further developments would be until a vote of no confidence is passed against the Menteri Besar in the state assembly. If HRH the Sultan acts any other way, HRH would be accused of doing a Perak on Selangor. And we do not what that, do we? We hate what happened in Perak so we will also hate the same thing done to Selangor.

Anyway, the issue is not just about whether Khalid should go or should stay. Let the legal eagles or the Selangor state assembly sort that one out. HRH the Sultan will just have to follow the advice of the Menteri Besar on that one and if he has been voted out then it is Khalid’s duty to advice HRH the Sultan so.

More importantly, what needs to now be resolved is, even if Khalid is voted out, who shall be the person replacing him? (Or will Khalid advice HRH the Sultan to dissolve the state assembly — since he has been voted out — to make way for fresh state elections?)

Even if the state assembly is not going to be dissolved and Khalid steps down, the Sultan still has to agree to his successor. PKR and DAP want Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail. PAS does not. So can PKR, DAP and PAS agree on the successor?

Currently they cannot. And this is the main issue. So PKR, DAP and PAS, even if they come to a consensus that Khalid must go, must also come to a consensus regarding his successor.

The third issue would be, even if they can come to a consensus regarding Khalid’s successor, would HRH the Sultan agree to this person?

Now, that is the prerogative of HRH the Sultan. The Sultan may be forced to accept the decision of the state assembly and the result of the no confidence vote. But HRH the Sultan does not need to agree to the name of the person who will be replacing Khalid.

So Pakatan Rakyat needs to get its act together. Don’t later blame the Sultan because you cannot come to a consensus or agree to Khalid’s successor. And if HRH the Sultan asks for three names you had better get the three names ready.

And if you fail to do this and if HRH the Sultan appoints a new Menteri Besar (other than Dr Wan Azizah) “who in HRH’s judgement can most likely command the confidence of the majority in the House”, HRH the Sultan will just be following what the law allows him to do.

——————————————————–

哦，如果你不喜欢殿下有关州务大臣的选择，当然你可以再一次地动议针对新的州务大臣投下不信任票。你也可以一直每逢几个月就搞这个直到下届大选，罢免一个接一个的州务大臣。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

Translated by Ngew Kok Yew

关于卡立（Khalid Ibrahim）是否依然是合法的（或道德观念上允许的）雪兰莪州务大臣的辩论正激烈地进行。

一些认为是“合法”但不“道德”。另一些着指出即不“合法”也不“道德”。也有一些说法是卡立就算失去州议会的多数支持，他仍然必须通过合法的宪法途径被罢免。而那就是通过针对卡立在州议会投下不信任票。

一些人甚至用发生在五年前的霹雳州宪法危机为撤除卡立的优先理由，却同时矛盾地认为当时，就算过后法院判决维持霹雳州苏丹殿下的决定，尼查（Nizar Jamaluddin），来自民联的霹雳州务大臣，被撤除是一项错误。他们说，别忘了，法庭是根据被下达的吩咐（来自国阵）来做出判决的。因此，我们不能相信法庭。

这意味着在霹雳所发生是错的，而发生在霹雳的事件放在雪兰莪却是对的。

不同的律师或宪法专家有着不一样的看法。这也是他们赚取钱财的工具——通过在法庭辩解自身的看法。如果法律是清楚无疑的，那么就没有上法庭的必要了。唯有当我们具有野心或是身陷不明是才上法庭，也同时让律师们赚钱。

譬如说，宪法指出最高元首必须（shall）听取首相的建议（或是州苏丹必须听取州务大臣的建议）。

这里的“shall”，自17世纪起，意为“必须”、“应该”、“将会”等。也就是说苏丹必须听取任何一个州务大臣所提出的建议。苏丹能够对该建议视而不顾吗？我可以很肯定那些我刚刚提到的所谓法律专家一定会辩论说苏丹没有这个权利。殿下无论如何都必须听取州务大臣。

那么，卡立于星期一向苏丹给予什么样的建议？我们全都知道答案。卡立说他依然持有州议会多数的支持。如此，根据该说法，苏丹令卡立继续留任直到过后的演变。

所谓“过后的演变”意指在州议会针对卡立投下不信任票的动议。如果苏丹殿下采取另一项办法，那么殿下将会被指控说让霹雳事件在雪兰莪上演。我们不要这个，不是吗？我们讨厌在霹雳所发生的，所以我们也会讨厌如果类似的事情发生在雪兰莪。

然而，这所牵涉的不单单只是卡立的去留。这留给法精英和雪兰莪州议会去解决。关于这苏丹殿下只会听取州务大臣的建议，如果卡立被投票下台，那是他的责任去建议苏丹该如何。

如今最为重要，最必须尽快解决的是，如果卡立被投票下台，那么应由谁来代替他？（既然卡立被投票下台，那么他有可能建议苏丹解散州议会以便举行新的州选举吗？）

就算如果州议会不被解散和卡立自行下台，有关卡立的继任者还是必须由苏丹来同意。公正党和行动党都提名要旺阿兹莎（Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail）。回教党却不同意。所以，三党能够先在继任者上取得共识吗？

如今他们不能。这就是该情况下的主要议题。因此，就算三党同意卡立的撤除，也必须在继任者的课题上取得共识。

第三个问题会是，就算三党在继任者的议题上得到共识，苏丹殿下就一定会同意该州务大臣人选吗？

这是苏丹的特权。苏丹可能被逼接受州议会的决定和不信任票动议的结果。然而，殿下并非要得同意代替卡立的人选。

因此，民联必须一同行动。不要因为你们无法取得继任者的共识而怪罪于苏丹殿下。而且，如果苏丹要求三位州务大臣人选，你们就得必须拥有一份三人的名单。

如果你们无法做到这一点，苏丹因而委任一个“根据殿下自身的判断在州议会拥有多数支持的议员”为新的州务大臣（非旺阿兹莎），殿下也不过是做一些法律上允许的。

Raja Petra Kamarudin RPK