How would the Agong know the PM no longer has the majority?
Muhyiddin is still Prime Minister until he is no longer Prime Minister. And until he is no longer Prime Minister, Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong is compelled to take his advice. So why is this “leading constitutional law expert” saying otherwise?
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Umno-owned Free Malaysia Today reported Malaysia’s “leading constitutional law expert” as saying that Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong is compelled to take the advice of the Prime Minister only if the Prime Minister still commands the confidence (of the majority) of the Members of the House. If not, then His Majesty the Agong can ignore the advice of the Prime Minister. (READ THE FMT NEWS REPORT BELOW)
I am NOT a lawyer, let alone a “leading constitutional law expert”, but I am willing to bet my sweet ninny that Shad Saleem Faruqi is wrong.
As long as Muhyiddin Yassin is still legally and officially the Prime Minister, then he is legally and officially the Prime Minister, which means His Majesty the Agong cannot assume otherwise. There are no two ways about it.
Shad Saleem said, “…while the King largely acts upon the advice of the prime minister, the definition of “prime minister” must be examined.”
So, what then is the definition of Prime Minister? The definition of Prime Minister is the man who sits in the Prime Minister’s chair in Putrajaya. And as long as Muhyiddin is the one sitting in the Prime Minister’s chair in Putrajaya, then by definition he is the Prime Minister.
Muhyiddin was sworn in as Malaysia’s Prime Minister on 1st March 2020 because he either had the largest minority or he had the majority. Both are valid to qualify Muhyiddin to get sworn is as Prime Minister. And he stays as Prime Minister until another member of parliament who has a larger minority, or the majority, can prove it.
Seri Paduka Baginda cannot assume Muhyiddin has lost his majority and that someone else now has the majority, or has a larger minority. On what basis is His Majesty assuming this? On the basis of Anwar Ibrahim’s claim that he has the “strong, formidable, convincing” majority?
Anwar has made so many claims before and all have been proven lies. He claimed he is innocent of sodomy, it is not him in that sex video with the Chinese prostitute, he has six boxes of evidence regarding Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s corruption, he has the copy of the RM90 million cheque that Najib Tun Razak gave PAS, he is taking over the government on 16th September 2008, he and Umno are going to pass a vote of no confidence against Muhyiddin in October 2020, and much more.
Yes, Anwar has made numerous claims in the past. But not a single claim was true. All were lies. So why should His Majesty the Agong believe Anwar’s latest claim in a string of 100 claims that were all proven lies in the end?
If Muhyiddin no longer commands the confidence of the majority members of the House, then prove it. Until then, Muhyiddin is still the Prime Minister, and hence the Agong is compelled to take his advice. To refuse to take Muhyiddin’s advice because Anwar claims he now commands the confidence of the majority members of the House is a silly argument from a so-called “leading constitutional law expert”.
Anyway, from what I was told, around 30 or so members of parliament from Umno have signed statutory declarations pledging support to Muhyiddin Yassin. Nazri Aziz, in fact, mentioned this today. And these Umno MPs are opposed to any partnership that involves DAP, PKR and Anwar Ibrahim.
Ahmad Zahid Hamidi is now under attack for his secret deal with Anwar and Umno needs to postpone its party elections another 18 months to avoid Zahid being ousted in the party election.
It looks like it is not Muhyiddin who is going to be ousted via a vote of no confidence, but Zahid who is fighting for survival instead. And because of Zahid’s secret deal with Anwar, PKR and DAP, support for Muhyiddin is getting stronger. So why should the Agong refuse to take Muhyiddin’s advice on the assumption he no longer has the confidence of the majority members of the House?
Muhyiddin is still Prime Minister until he is no longer Prime Minister. And until he is no longer Prime Minister, Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong is compelled to take his advice. So why is this “leading constitutional law expert” saying otherwise?
********************************************************************
Agong acts on advice of PM, only if he commands support of MPs, says expert
(FMT) – One of the nation’s leading constitutional law experts says the Yang di-Pertuan Agong acts on the advice of the prime minister, so long as the office bearer has the support and confidence of the Dewan Rakyat.
In an online lecture titled “Understanding the Malaysian Constitution”, Tunku Abdul Rahman chair and constitutional law professor Shad Saleem Faruqi said this is due to Article 43(4) of the Federal Constitution which says:
“If the Prime Minister ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House of Representatives, then, unless at his request the Yang di-Pertuan Agong dissolves Parliament, the Prime Minister shall tender the resignation of the Cabinet.”
He said that while the King largely acts upon the advice of the prime minister, the definition of “prime minister” must be examined.
“Does it mean any person holding the office, or does it mean a person who holds the office and who enjoys the support of the members of the Dewan Rakyat?
“While the Agong is bound by the advice of the ‘prime minister’, the word means a prime minister with a solid base, legitimacy and support in the Dewan Rakyat,” he said in reference to Article 43(4).
Shad Saleem said this in response to questions asked by audience members regarding the King’s role in reopening parliament.
“Section 14(1)(b) of the emergency ordinance says, parliament shall be summoned, prorogued and dissolved on a date as the Agong thinks appropriate. So many people now say it’s the decision of the Agong, not the decision of the prime minister. In my view, even emergency powers are under advice.
“The problem that has arisen in the last few months is that many people are interpreting the emergency ordinance literally,” he added.
Shad Saleem said that while the King can ask for a prime minister to resign or dismiss them if they lose the backing of the lower house, the current Cabinet has tenure due to the emergency ordinance.
“Section 11 says that as long as the emergency is in force, the prime minister and the Cabinet existing immediately prior to the issuance of the proclamation of emergency shall continue to exercise the executive authority of the federation.
“Until Aug 1, the prime minister and the Cabinet have security of tenure because of the ordinance. But once it (emergency) ends, it is a new game altogether.”
