AUGUST 16 — A confidence vote in Parliament is the best way to test if the prime minister has the support he needs to lead the government, a few lawyers reportedly said.
“A vote in Parliament is the most open and transparent way because the sittings are broadcast ‘live’ and also would be on official records via the Hansard.
“As such, there is little likelihood that the result will be challenged. Compare this with a meeting with the Ruler, or through SDs, which happen behind closed doors and may be questioned,” Syahredzan Johan reportedly told Malay Mail.
But it was a meeting with the Ruler that the Mentri Besar of Perak case was resolved. That Ruler was His Royal Highness (HRH) the late Sultan of Perak Sultan Azlan Shah. Before being a King and Ruler, HRH was a High Court Judge, Chief Justice of Malaya and Lord President of the Federal Court.
HRH once wrote:
“Democracy means more than just simple majority rule, for even the majority has to abide by the dictates of the Constitution.” (“Supremacy of Law in Malaysia” in Visu Sinnadurai (ed), Constitutional Monarchy, Rule of Law and Good Governance, Thomson Sweet & Maxwell 2004)
HRH once said:
“[O]ur Constitution … stands in its own right and it is in the end the wording of our Constitution itself that is to be interpreted and applied…. Each country frames its Constitution according to its genius and for the good of its own society. We look at other Constitutions to learn from their experiences and from a desire to see how their progress and well-being is ensured by their fundamental law.” (Loh Kooi Choon v Government of Malaysia [1977] 2 MLJ 187 at p 188. HRH was then a High Court judge)
It was HRH who appointed Datuk Seri Haji Mohammad Nizar (Nizar) as Mentri Besar (MB) on March 17, 2008. Nizar had the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly (LA) — 31 out of 59.
Almost a year later on February 4, 2009 HRH received three separate letters from three members of the LA which expressed support for Barisan Nasional (BN); that they had lost confidence in Nizar and that they were leaving their respective political parties but maintaining their position as members of the LA. Later on the same day, Nizar was granted an audience by HRH. Nizar requested that HRH dissolve the Legislative Assembly (LA).
The next day, HRH granted an audience to Datuk Seri Mohd Najib (Najib), then Deputy Prime Minister, who informed HRH that BN had the majority of the members of the LA — 31 out of 59. In other words, Nizar had lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the LA.
Later, Najib brought all 31 members of the LA to have an audience with HRH. All 31 members of the Perak LA pledged their support to BN. HRH then spoke in person to the LA members who had signed letters pledging their support to BN who confirmed that they had signed the letters voluntarily without any coercion from any other party.
Thereafter, HRH granted an audience to Nizar. Twenty minutes later, Nizar left the palace. An hour after Nizar left the palace, HRH’s office issued a press statement to Bernama.
In the statement, it was made known that HRH had turned down the request by Nizar to dissolve the LA under Art XVI(6) of the State of Perak Constitution and as a consequence Nizar was required to tender his resignation together with his executive council members. Since Nizar failed to do so, the offices of MB together with the executive council members were deemed to have been vacated.
It was February 5, 2009. A year and four days later on February 9, 2010 the Federal Court, following Nizar’s appeal on his legal challenge against the appointment of his successor as MB, delivered its judgment in that case approving HRH’s gathering of extraneous sources to determine the loss of confidence in the MB and that the loss of confidence in the MB may be established not only through a vote in the LA.
The likes of Syahredzan may say that there is little likelihood that a confidence vote in Parliament will be challenged. But a confidence vote is a vote of MPs present and voting in the House (Dewan Rakyat).
Let’s reflect on how British Prime Minister James Callaghan (Labour Party) lost on a confidence vote by 311-310 in the House of Commons on that dramatic and historic March 28, 1979.
It was a single vote loss. A crucial vote for Callaghan could have come from his own Labour MP Alfred Broughton. Unfortunately for Callaghan and the Labour Party, Broughton was on his death bed when the vote came. Broughton was willing to travel down to Westminster against his doctor’s advice, but Callaghan refused the offer.
Had the result been a tie, the Speaker would have voted against the motion of no confidence.
Given that the number of MPs who would be allowed to be present at the first meeting of the fourth session of the 14th Parliament beginning September 6 would be decided based on advice by the Health Ministry (MoH) and the National Security Council (MKN) — as stated by Deputy Speaker Datuk Mohd Rashid Hasnon — how would a vote in the Dewan Rakyat be “the best way to test if the prime minister has the support he needs to lead the government”?
If the attendance of all 200 MPs to vote on a motion of confidence in the Dewan Rakyat is not a guarantee, the wisdom of HRH’s way to determine loss of confidence can be seen by all now — more than 12 years on.
If a meeting with the Ruler, or through SDs — behind closed doors and whatnot — may be questioned, so too a confidence vote when attendance of MPs in the Dewan Rakyat to vote on a motion of confidence may be decided based on advice by the MoH and MKN — even as a preventive measure against the spread of Covid-19.
In short, a confidence vote in Parliament is not fool proof either.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
