NOVEMBER 11 — When the dissolution of Parliament is proposed as an answer to disagreement within the Cabinet, my first question is what, precisely, has failed. Has the Cabinet lost cohesion? Has the Prime Minister lost the confidence of a majority of the Dewan Rakyat? Or has the government become unable to govern effectively for the remainder of the parliamentary term? The Federal Constitution provides distinct procedures for changes in the Cabinet, loss of majority confidence and dissolution of Parliament.

On November 10, 2026, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said that dissolving Parliament would be preferable to reshuffling the Cabinet. Anthony Loke responded that the Prime Minister should resist pressure for an early dissolution and said that the role of advising the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on dissolution belonged to the Prime Minister. The exchange raises a constitutional question. How far can the officeholder entitled to make the request determine its outcome? (Astro AWANI, November 10, 2026 • Bernama, November 10, 2026)

The request and the power to dissolve

Article 55(2) vests the power to dissolve Parliament in the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Article 40(2)(b) expressly identifies the withholding of consent to a request for dissolution as a discretionary function. Articles 40(1) and 40(1A), which govern the ordinary requirement to act on advice, form part of the interpretive framework. Precision therefore matters when describing dissolution as the Prime Minister’s prerogative. The Prime Minister’s institutional role is to make the request. (Federal Constitution).

The dissolution of the 14th Parliament illustrates the distinction. Ismail Sabri Yaakob sought an audience and presented his written request on October 9, 2022. The Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat confirmed receipt of the proclamation signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong under Article 55(2), with effect from October 10. In the Royal Address recorded in the Dewan Rakyat’s Official Report on February 14, 2023, His Majesty likewise described the Prime Minister’s request and the royal assent to dissolution as distinct acts. (Special address, paragraphs 27–28 • Speaker’s statement • Royal Address, paragraph 46)

How far does royal discretion extend?

Andrew Harding gives greater weight to the ordinary rule of acting on advice when a Prime Minister retains majority confidence. On that reading, the clearest case for withholding consent arises when confidence has been lost and Article 43(4) applies. The argument draws strength from responsible government, under which political decisions ordinarily rest with those accountable to Parliament. Shad Saleem Faruqi reads Article 40(2)(b) more broadly. On his account, the ordinary practice of granting a request can coexist with discretion to refuse one in particular circumstances. (Andrew Harding • Shad Saleem Faruqi)

In my view, the broader reading has stronger textual and historical support. Article 40(2)(b) refers to a request for dissolution in general terms. Article 43(4) prescribes the consequences of a loss of confidence. Treating that loss as a prerequisite for every exercise of discretion under Article 40(2)(b) requires reading a qualification into the provision. Paragraph 69 of the 1957 Reid Commission Report first discusses requests for dissolution that may arise in various circumstances and the need for room for judgment in a critical case. It then addresses separately the obligation to resign following a loss of confidence. Paragraph 18 of the 1957 White Paper, Constitutional Proposals for the Federation of Malaya, also states the discretion to withhold consent in general terms. These records illuminate the structure of the provisions. The operative constitutional text remains controlling. (Federal Constitution • Reid Report, paragraph 69 • White Paper, paragraph 18)

Cabinet consultation and the limits of the 2022 litigation

In Charles Anthony R Santiago v Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob & Ors [2022] MLRHU 2286, at [50]–[55], the High Court took the view that the Prime Minister could seek dissolution without first consulting the Cabinet. On November 15, 2022, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the royal decision to dissolve Parliament in the dispute was non-justiciable. Its reported reasoning distinguished a challenge to the Prime Minister’s request from a challenge to the dissolution itself. On January 5, 2023, the Federal Court refused leave to appeal because the dispute had become academic after GE15, the formation of a new government and the convening of the 15th Parliament. The specific proposition on Cabinet consultation is accordingly attributable to the High Court’s written reasons. (High Court’s written reasons • Report of Court of Appeal proceedings • Report of Federal Court proceedings)

The reasoning warrants a distinction between the monarch’s authority to consider the request and the procedure within government before that request is made. Article 40(2)(b) addresses the former. Article 43(3) makes the Cabinet collectively responsible to Parliament and offers a substantial reason for Cabinet consultation when Parliament’s very continuance is at stake. Establishing consultation as a legal condition for the validity of a request would require a constitutional basis for that further step. This distinction preserves room to scrutinise the Prime Minister’s political judgment while taking the High Court’s position on legal validity seriously. (Federal Constitution • High Court’s written reasons)

Loss of confidence is a question of evidence

Article 43(4) requires the Prime Minister who loses majority confidence to tender the Cabinet’s resignation unless Parliament is dissolved by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong at the Prime Minister’s request. It is the loss of confidence that triggers this obligation. If the Prime Minister retains majority confidence, refusal of dissolution alone does not trigger it. If the appointment of a successor arises, Article 43(2)(a) requires the appointment of a member of the Dewan Rakyat who, in the judgment of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, is likely to command the confidence of the majority. (Federal Constitution)

In Datuk Seri Ir Hj Mohammad Nizar bin Jamaluddin v Datuk Seri Dr Zambry bin Abdul Kadir [2010] 2 MLJ 285, the Federal Court distinguished an ordinary dissolution request under the Perak State Constitution from one made in consequence of a loss of confidence. It also accepted that a loss of confidence could be established through properly proved evidence beyond a formal vote in the assembly. The value of the Perak analogy lies in two points. The basis for the request bears on the consequences of refusal, and loss of confidence requires evidence concerning the support of members of the House. A party leader’s call for an election, a Cabinet disagreement or the resignation of one minister, taken alone, falls short of establishing that loss. (Federal Court judgment)

Why seek an election now?

Article 55(3) sets a five-year parliamentary term from the date of the first meeting, subject to earlier dissolution. The 15th Parliament first met on December 19, 2022. Once dissolution occurs, Article 55(4) requires a general election within 60 days and the new Parliament to be summoned to meet within 120 days, both measured from dissolution. Those consequences deserve attention when dissolution is proposed as an answer to a disagreement over the composition of the Cabinet. (Federal Constitution • Dewan Rakyat Official Report, December 19, 2022)

A call to shorten Parliament’s life should be accompanied by reasons commensurate with its consequences. If the case is that the government has lost majority confidence, the basis for that claim should be made available for scrutiny. If the government retains confidence, those seeking an early election should identify the public interest it would serve and explain why changes within the Cabinet or continued government under the existing Parliament would be insufficient. Voters deserve that explanation before they are asked to renew the mandate they have already given.

* Shahrul Mizan Ismail is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.