Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak has launched a broadside on PKR, saying the party failed to understand the Selangor state constitution when it disputed the power of the sultan over the appointment of the menteri besar.PAS stage-managing politics of Selangor has unexpectedly opened up a Pandora's Box to strengthen its stranglehold on Muslim politics the formation of affiliate with UMNO The domestic politics of Selangor are central to this drama, and to this Perkasa president Datuk Ibrahim Ali'S threat.
The domestic politics of Malays rights group Perkasa are central to this drama, and remote control by Mahathir In short, the Perkasa army and UMNO spies are once again playing with fire — with in order to secure Muslim voters
RELATED ARTICLE
Najib was talking to the Pekan Umno delegates who must be aware that their leaders like Najib and Mahathir have robbed the country blind. Mahathir is said to have stolen a whopping RM140 billion. Najib must be hoping that he too will be able to steal a similar or higher amount. The lower ranked Pekan Umno delegates, however, would only be able to steal very much less but they would be hoping to climb up the leadership ladder and then steal very much more. To continue stealing they all have to get the majority of the Malay votes and so they pretend to be the champions and protectors of their race, religion and rulers. The thinking Malays know that since Malays form the majority and since more than 90 percent of the public service, the police and the armed forces are made up of Malays, there is absolutely no threat to the Malays and the main threat comes from the Umno politicians who steal by the billions. That is why many Malays like Dyana are now joining the opposition.
For the last few months one would be forgiven for believing that the lunatics have been running the asylum called UMNO, so inconsistent and muddled their actions have been. But after yesterday, it is worth asking if even the lunatics are in charge. Enough has been said about the incomprehensible strangeness of the government’s actions, and in any case this level of mismanagement is so self-evident that additional comment is unnecessary. What is interesting however is to ask what would make a group of reasonably savvy, seasoned politicians used to exercising and staying in power act in such a self-defeating manner.
For the last few months one would be forgiven for believing that the lunatics have been running the asylum called UMNO, so inconsistent and muddled their actions have been. But after yesterday, it is worth asking if even the lunatics are in charge. Enough has been said about the incomprehensible strangeness of the government’s actions, and in any case this level of mismanagement is so self-evident that additional comment is unnecessary. What is interesting however is to ask what would make a group of reasonably savvy, seasoned politicians used to exercising and staying in power act in such a self-defeating manner.
PAS moderate Khalid Samad (pic) has warned of a faction in the Islamist party which is out to break its alliance with Pakatan Rakyat (PR) in order to create a more “exclusive” and “chauvinistic” brand of Islam.
It's funny for PAS to ask others not to interfere in their affairs when it is patently clear that the Syura council and the President has already been compromised. And PAS does not think twice when they interfere with what is essentially PKR's prerogative. A simple analogy with be a commercial joint venture. The parties would have agreed that each of them are entitled to select the managing director, and other directors and in what numbers. The party with the prerogative has the right to remove that director or MD and replace him/her. What PAS is doing is in breach of that joint venture terms and conditions. For professing to practise Islam close to their hearts and not just wearing on their sleeves, PAS is surely demonstrating that it is acceptable to breach its contractual undertaking. This is not acceptable. If PAS has sincerely been working within Pakatan framework, the Sultan would not have had any excuse to ask for so many names, nevermind the wisdom behind such decree. the group had three strategies: one, to promote the leadership of the ulama to the extent that it could not be challenged; two, to attack the leadership from the professional and pro-Pakatan Rakyat faction; and three, to attack and create tension with allies PKR and DAP.
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.
Dr. Aziz Bari laid out expressly that PAS’s action in nominating a second name for the Menteri Besar’s post has created an avenue for the Selangor Palace to wade into the state’s messy politics.According to one of the most important writers on the subject of constitutional monarchy, Walter Bagehot, the monarchy merely symbolises the unity of the national or in our case, state community; from the point of view of political power, the Sovereign in a constitutional monarchy has only three rights: “the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn”.
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
The domestic politics of Malays rights group Perkasa are central to this drama, and remote control by Mahathir In short, the Perkasa army and UMNO spies are once again playing with fire — with in order to secure Muslim voters
RELATED ARTICLE
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad No way remote control PM can stay in office
Najib was talking to the Pekan Umno delegates who must be aware that their leaders like Najib and Mahathir have robbed the country blind. Mahathir is said to have stolen a whopping RM140 billion. Najib must be hoping that he too will be able to steal a similar or higher amount. The lower ranked Pekan Umno delegates, however, would only be able to steal very much less but they would be hoping to climb up the leadership ladder and then steal very much more. To continue stealing they all have to get the majority of the Malay votes and so they pretend to be the champions and protectors of their race, religion and rulers. The thinking Malays know that since Malays form the majority and since more than 90 percent of the public service, the police and the armed forces are made up of Malays, there is absolutely no threat to the Malays and the main threat comes from the Umno politicians who steal by the billions. That is why many Malays like Dyana are now joining the opposition.
Umno's Blindness of the Deaf
Dr Mahathir Mohamad is disappointed with Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, whom he said has performed even worse than Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
In a stinging blog posting today, the former Premier said: “I had no choice but to withdraw my support. This too was not effective. So I have to reprimand (Najib).”
Mahathir criticised Najib for pandering to the wishes of the opposition and neighbouring countries and cited the repeal of the Internal Security Act as an example. “I am reprimanding because I believe that leaders who are not reprimanded will believe that all they have done is good. Only when reprimanded would they realise their mistakes and perhaps rectify them,” he added in what can be considered his most caustic attack against Najib.
Mahathir said it was not easy for Malays to criticise their leaders although they are in the wrong, as they are afraid of openly criticising them. “However, behind the leader they would say vulgar things.I am not like any other Malays. When the first Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman made policies which are not beneficial for the Malays, I wrote a letter criticising Tunku,” he said in describing his famous letter for which he had been expelled from UMNO.
The former Premier of 22-years, who just celebrated his 89th birthday last month, admitted that he had been critical of Najib’s administration and panned many of the present government’s policies.
Najib’s ills, according to Mahathir
Mahathir further listed down Najib’s policies with which he disagreed, starting with the government’s decision to repeal the controversial Internal Security Act, and the Restricted Residence law, which he said had not stopped the opposition from political parties.
“In fact, crime has increased with the release of crime lords,” he said. The former Premier also criticised that Malaysia was willing to bow down to neighbouring countries until internal country matters are affected by the foreign countries’ views.
Mahathir said the government’s funds are used to buy votes especially during general elections and this resulted in the people to depend on the government. “This resulted in the willingness of the people to work being reduced as they are rewarded for not doing anything. This does not help in the development of the country,” he lashed out, obviously referring to the Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia (BR1M) handouts.
He further questioned Najib’s economic policy where consumers are bearing the brunt and there is no control of imports to the detriment of local industries. Mahathir further questioned Najib’s actions of giving workers more than a week’s leave and imposing minimum wage without taking into consideration the costs that it has on business and industries which now failed to compete with imported products. He said many of the government’s policies under Najib are destroying relations between the races and this is affecting the country’s economy and finances. “All this is a result of the government supporters not wanting to criticise its leaders,” he said.
‘Never expected Najib to be worse than Pak Lah’
Mahathir in his two-and-a-half pages posting said Najib is being seen as ineffective compared to his predecessor Abdullah. “I never envisaged that his (Najib’s) achievement in the 13th general election would be worse than Abdullah’s.”
“My hope is that Najib takes a lesson from his poor performance in the 13th general election.However, it seems there is no change to Najib’s policy or approach, although I have expressed my opinion (which are also the views of the people who had met him),” he said.
Mahathir ended his scathing comment by saying if there is no one willing to criticise Najib, he is willing to do so and is prepared to face the consequences.
“I have been isolated for criticising Abdullah and was slandered by many. If I criticise and they abuse me I will accept it. It is not that I do not love the leader but I love my race and country more,” he said. Mahathir had timed the blog posting just as Najib had returned from his two-weeks overseas leave today.
Social media is abuzz with "shares" and comments over former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's scathing attack on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who ironically was his choice as successor to Malaysia's fifth prime minister, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
Opposition politicians were most active in commenting on the latest controversy, where PKR Bayan Baru MP Sim Tze Tzin said on Twitter: "After Pakatan crisis, now Umno in crisis. Pass it over you, folks" and tagged @mpkotabelud @Khairykj @NajibRazak (referring to the Housing and Urban Well-being Minister Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan, Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin and Najib, respectively).
DAP Kluang MP Liew Chin Tong tweeted: "Malaysian politics never fails to excite 'Dr Mahathir withdraws support for Najib government'."He further posted on Twitter one of his previous statements with the tweet: "My 2006 piece on hw @chedet_cc ended Tunku n Hussein PM-ships 'He helped rid two PMs, will Pak Lah be next?'"
Meanwhile, PAS research centre executive director Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad tweeted: "Tun, give us a break! Let Najib run the show bcz we havent seen much."
DAP Taiping MP Nga Kor Ming also tweeted the news on Dr Mahathir's attack on Najib with his post: "Dr Mahathir hari ini kutuk Najib kerana BN guna duit rakyat beli undi & kerja Najib lebih teruk dari Tun Abdullah!" (Dr Mahathir criticised Najib today because BN was using the people's money to buy votes and Najib's performance was worse than Tun Abdullah!)
Another user RoZEL using the Twitter handle @MestiUbah posted: "DrM serang Najib! Apakah @MukhrizMahathir pun mula kan langkan utk serang @NajibRazak", and tagged Dr Mahathir's son Mukhriz Mahathir, who is Kedah menteri besar and Najib. (Dr M attacks Najib! Will Mukhriz follow suit and attack Najib).
Another Twitter user, Morgan 1899 using the handle @GEanalyst had this to say: "Mahathir cannot wait for his son to be the next PM as his days are numbered."
Dr Mahathir lashed out at Najib's administration today, saying he was withdrawing his support for the prime minister as his criticism had fallen on deaf ears.
"I have no choice but to withdraw my support. This has not been effective, so I have to criticise," he said, adding that Najib was no better than his predecessor, Tun Abdullah Badawi.
Dr Mahathir said he had hoped Najib learnt lessons from his poor performance in the last general election but it appeared that he had not.Will Mahathir get his way in pushing Najib out? Unlikely.
But that may not be his intention. He may just want to bring him in line - in line with Dr Mahathir's thinking.
“I’m here not to Listen to Mahathir ; I’m here to serve,” said Najib have advised seekers that when you lack a certain virtue, try, try and succeed. In the beginning, if you don’t feel humble but wish to become humble, then try faking humility. If you can’t make it, fake it!” The idea is that with repeated auto-suggestion, you begin to acquire the virtue over time, and lo and behold, one day you are that humble person you have been trying to be. Humility is perhaps among the most difficult virtues to cultivate or acquire at a time when everything is so focused on satiation of the individual’s wants or wishes. And hence the aggressive attitude we see all around us.Do your duty without an eye on the fruits of your action. Good thoughts and work are bound to produce good results.
Najib's team will start working the ground to explain to Umno power brokers and the media the "real" reason for Dr Mahathir withdrawing support for Najib.
Mahathir came under attack from political parties for his controversial remarks
"Hitler" and said Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin and should stop "fooling" innocent people
"I thought we had one Hitler in making a known detractor of Prime Minister READMOREhttp://themalaybusinesstribune.blogspot.com/2014/08/will-mahathir-get-his-way-in-pushing.html
Umno's Blindness of the Deaf
Dr Mahathir Mohamad is disappointed with Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, whom he said has performed even worse than Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
In a stinging blog posting today, the former Premier said: “I had no choice but to withdraw my support. This too was not effective. So I have to reprimand (Najib).”
Mahathir criticised Najib for pandering to the wishes of the opposition and neighbouring countries and cited the repeal of the Internal Security Act as an example. “I am reprimanding because I believe that leaders who are not reprimanded will believe that all they have done is good. Only when reprimanded would they realise their mistakes and perhaps rectify them,” he added in what can be considered his most caustic attack against Najib.
Mahathir said it was not easy for Malays to criticise their leaders although they are in the wrong, as they are afraid of openly criticising them. “However, behind the leader they would say vulgar things.I am not like any other Malays. When the first Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman made policies which are not beneficial for the Malays, I wrote a letter criticising Tunku,” he said in describing his famous letter for which he had been expelled from UMNO.
The former Premier of 22-years, who just celebrated his 89th birthday last month, admitted that he had been critical of Najib’s administration and panned many of the present government’s policies.
Najib’s ills, according to Mahathir
Mahathir further listed down Najib’s policies with which he disagreed, starting with the government’s decision to repeal the controversial Internal Security Act, and the Restricted Residence law, which he said had not stopped the opposition from political parties.
“In fact, crime has increased with the release of crime lords,” he said. The former Premier also criticised that Malaysia was willing to bow down to neighbouring countries until internal country matters are affected by the foreign countries’ views.
Mahathir said the government’s funds are used to buy votes especially during general elections and this resulted in the people to depend on the government. “This resulted in the willingness of the people to work being reduced as they are rewarded for not doing anything. This does not help in the development of the country,” he lashed out, obviously referring to the Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia (BR1M) handouts.
He further questioned Najib’s economic policy where consumers are bearing the brunt and there is no control of imports to the detriment of local industries. Mahathir further questioned Najib’s actions of giving workers more than a week’s leave and imposing minimum wage without taking into consideration the costs that it has on business and industries which now failed to compete with imported products. He said many of the government’s policies under Najib are destroying relations between the races and this is affecting the country’s economy and finances. “All this is a result of the government supporters not wanting to criticise its leaders,” he said.
‘Never expected Najib to be worse than Pak Lah’
Mahathir in his two-and-a-half pages posting said Najib is being seen as ineffective compared to his predecessor Abdullah. “I never envisaged that his (Najib’s) achievement in the 13th general election would be worse than Abdullah’s.”
“My hope is that Najib takes a lesson from his poor performance in the 13th general election.However, it seems there is no change to Najib’s policy or approach, although I have expressed my opinion (which are also the views of the people who had met him),” he said.
Mahathir ended his scathing comment by saying if there is no one willing to criticise Najib, he is willing to do so and is prepared to face the consequences.
“I have been isolated for criticising Abdullah and was slandered by many. If I criticise and they abuse me I will accept it. It is not that I do not love the leader but I love my race and country more,” he said. Mahathir had timed the blog posting just as Najib had returned from his two-weeks overseas leave today.
Social media is abuzz with "shares" and comments over former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's scathing attack on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who ironically was his choice as successor to Malaysia's fifth prime minister, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
Opposition politicians were most active in commenting on the latest controversy, where PKR Bayan Baru MP Sim Tze Tzin said on Twitter: "After Pakatan crisis, now Umno in crisis. Pass it over you, folks" and tagged @mpkotabelud @Khairykj @NajibRazak (referring to the Housing and Urban Well-being Minister Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan, Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin and Najib, respectively).
DAP Kluang MP Liew Chin Tong tweeted: "Malaysian politics never fails to excite 'Dr Mahathir withdraws support for Najib government'."He further posted on Twitter one of his previous statements with the tweet: "My 2006 piece on hw @chedet_cc ended Tunku n Hussein PM-ships 'He helped rid two PMs, will Pak Lah be next?'"
Meanwhile, PAS research centre executive director Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad tweeted: "Tun, give us a break! Let Najib run the show bcz we havent seen much."
DAP Taiping MP Nga Kor Ming also tweeted the news on Dr Mahathir's attack on Najib with his post: "Dr Mahathir hari ini kutuk Najib kerana BN guna duit rakyat beli undi & kerja Najib lebih teruk dari Tun Abdullah!" (Dr Mahathir criticised Najib today because BN was using the people's money to buy votes and Najib's performance was worse than Tun Abdullah!)
Another user RoZEL using the Twitter handle @MestiUbah posted: "DrM serang Najib! Apakah @MukhrizMahathir pun mula kan langkan utk serang @NajibRazak", and tagged Dr Mahathir's son Mukhriz Mahathir, who is Kedah menteri besar and Najib. (Dr M attacks Najib! Will Mukhriz follow suit and attack Najib).
Another Twitter user, Morgan 1899 using the handle @GEanalyst had this to say: "Mahathir cannot wait for his son to be the next PM as his days are numbered."
Dr Mahathir lashed out at Najib's administration today, saying he was withdrawing his support for the prime minister as his criticism had fallen on deaf ears.
"I have no choice but to withdraw my support. This has not been effective, so I have to criticise," he said, adding that Najib was no better than his predecessor, Tun Abdullah Badawi.
Dr Mahathir said he had hoped Najib learnt lessons from his poor performance in the last general election but it appeared that he had not.Will Mahathir get his way in pushing Najib out? Unlikely.
But that may not be his intention. He may just want to bring him in line - in line with Dr Mahathir's thinking.
“I’m here not to Listen to Mahathir ; I’m here to serve,” said Najib have advised seekers that when you lack a certain virtue, try, try and succeed. In the beginning, if you don’t feel humble but wish to become humble, then try faking humility. If you can’t make it, fake it!” The idea is that with repeated auto-suggestion, you begin to acquire the virtue over time, and lo and behold, one day you are that humble person you have been trying to be. Humility is perhaps among the most difficult virtues to cultivate or acquire at a time when everything is so focused on satiation of the individual’s wants or wishes. And hence the aggressive attitude we see all around us.Do your duty without an eye on the fruits of your action. Good thoughts and work are bound to produce good results.
Najib's team will start working the ground to explain to Umno power brokers and the media the "real" reason for Dr Mahathir withdrawing support for Najib.
Mahathir came under attack from political parties for his controversial remarks
"Hitler" and said Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin and should stop "fooling" innocent people
"I thought we had one Hitler in making a known detractor of Prime Minister READMOREhttp://themalaybusinesstribune.blogspot.com/2014/08/will-mahathir-get-his-way-in-pushing.html
Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man warned that PASMA's recruitment gimmick to decimate the Shura Council
PAS moderate Khalid Samad (pic) has warned of a faction in the Islamist party which is out to break its alliance with Pakatan Rakyat (PR) in order to create a more “exclusive” and “chauvinistic” brand of Islam.
It's funny for PAS to ask others not to interfere in their affairs when it is patently clear that the Syura council and the President has already been compromised. And PAS does not think twice when they interfere with what is essentially PKR's prerogative. A simple analogy with be a commercial joint venture. The parties would have agreed that each of them are entitled to select the managing director, and other directors and in what numbers. The party with the prerogative has the right to remove that director or MD and replace him/her. What PAS is doing is in breach of that joint venture terms and conditions. For professing to practise Islam close to their hearts and not just wearing on their sleeves, PAS is surely demonstrating that it is acceptable to breach its contractual undertaking. This is not acceptable. If PAS has sincerely been working within Pakatan framework, the Sultan would not have had any excuse to ask for so many names, nevermind the wisdom behind such decree. the group had three strategies: one, to promote the leadership of the ulama to the extent that it could not be challenged; two, to attack the leadership from the professional and pro-Pakatan Rakyat faction; and three, to attack and create tension with allies PKR and DAP.
“After calling themselves ulama or defenders of the ulama leadership, this group will then attack the old leadership, especially those from the professional faction that is pro-PR.”
He said the original objective of the Shura Council was to monitor the party’s journey to ensure that it did not stray from Islam, but the anti-professional faction had adopted a new understanding more akin to a “Western theocratic” approach, whereby the ulama’s authority was paramount.
“The ulama have to be given positions although they might not be skilled or knowledgeable. This is against inclusiveness and has narrowed the room for participation by all so that cooperation between the ulama and professionals is no longer happening.”
At the same time, this group also seeks to ruin the close relationship between the ulama and professional factions in the party by planting suspicions in the ulama against the professionals, Khalid said.
“By using emotions and sentiments, their hope is that their targeted leaders would be rejected by PAS members,” he added.
The group targets leaders by accusing them of being liberal, disloyal to the president and ulama and being more aligned to PR and PKR, Khalid said.
“Their targets are those from the professional faction, who strongly support cooperation through PR.”
And by attacking allies PKR and DAP, they are in fact more friendly towards Umno and Barisan Nasional, Khalid said.
He said this group was hiding behind slogans like “Love the president, love the ulama”.
PAS! You dare proclaim yourself an Islamic party whose members pray 5 times a day? I'm also a pious Muslim but may I ask, what do you say to Allah each time you pray, and that too, 5 times a day? Ask for forgiveness for the numerous sins which you routinely commit each day?
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Unprecedented constitutional monarchy to re-enter active politics? Command and control:The future: Does no one care?
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.
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.
Dr. Aziz Bari laid out expressly that PAS’s action in nominating a second name for the Menteri Besar’s post has created an avenue for the Selangor Palace to wade into the state’s messy politics.According to one of the most important writers on the subject of constitutional monarchy, Walter Bagehot, the monarchy merely symbolises the unity of the national or in our case, state community; from the point of view of political power, the Sovereign in a constitutional monarchy has only three rights: “the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn”.
Malaysia’s most distinguished jurist, Tun Mohamed Suffian bin Hashim in “An Introduction to the Constitution of Malaysia”, spells out the role of Rulers and Governors as “acting in accordance with advice”:
“A Ruler, though sovereign, has no autocratic powers. A Ruler and similarly a Governor must act in accordance with the advice of the state Executive Council or of a member of the Council (usually the Menteri Besar) acting under the general authority of the Council, except as is otherwise provided by the federal or state constitution…The Ruler or Governor is entitled, at his request, to any information concerning the government of the state which is available to the Executive Council. The Ruler or Governor is not a member of the Executive Council. Members of the Executive Council meet only among themselves, and thereafter the Menteri Besar or the Chief Minister submits the Executive Council’s advice to the Ruler or Governor…”
Nonetheless, a Ruler does have discretionary power in the performance of the following functions including: the appointment of the Menteri Besar; the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly; request for a meeting of the Conference of Rulers; any function as Head of the Muslim religion or relating to the custom of the Malays; the appointment of an heir; the appointment of persons to Malay customary ranks, titles, etc., the regulation of royal courts and palaces.
HRH Selangor Sultan has been at the vanguard and brought greater transparency into the public domain around elected politicians , leaving it to the “wisdom” of even as it outlined the “constitutional expectation” against such appointments and its own displeasure of them.Ruler’s request for more names to fill MB post creates impasse, says law expert. While in legal and constitutional terms, it may have lobbed ball into the hands of HRH Selangor Sultan made a strong moral argument. Since HRH Selangor Sultan as trustee of the Constitution, “constitutional morality” requires that those in “conflict with law and involved in offences of moral turpitude and corruption should not be allowed to discharge duty .
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?
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?
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