YOURSAY | PN gov’t – constitutionally legitimate but democratically illegitimate

YOURSAY | ‘Do not drag royalty to legitimise something that is not legitimate.’

Agong's speech proves PN gov't's legitimacy, says Umno man

Gerard Lourdesamy: All of a sudden, the gracious speech written by the government of the day has become like a magic wand that can give legitimacy to a government that has no mandate from the people.

Then why bother with elections or even a Parliament? Just appoint a government by royal approbation instead. Since when is confidence in Parliament determined by the seating arrangement? Next what? Form governments using chair covers to prove the majority?

The day Muhyiddin Yassin got appointed as prime minister, he claimed to have 114 MPs and yet five MPs from Bersatu did not support him or give him statutory declarations (SD). Four other MPs from Sabah and Sarawak gave SDs in favour of Dr Mahathir Mohamad but Muhyiddin included them in his numbers. So at best, he only had 105 MPs with him in reality.

The constitutionally-mandated method to test the majority of a sitting PM is through a motion of no confidence in Parliament. If Perikatan Nasional (PN) claims to have 113 MPs with them at present, they will sail through the motion. But why the fear then? Hiding behind the throne is not going to save them.

So let Mahathir table his no-confidence motion in Parliament. If he is so universally loathed, the motion will be soundly defeated.

Clever Voter: Speeches are written and read with great aspirations and intended to inspire. Perhaps this may be so two decades ago. In the Internet era, information flow in real-time, and transparency and integrity go hand in hand.

The cabinet line-up is filled with unqualified people, and their resumes come with great abilities to lie and cheat.

It's a shame the Malay agenda is played up at the expense of the future. It's a pity there are no institutional strengths to protect the public interest. It's an even a waste to have an eighth PM who is bent on giving up his side of the bargain as part of an exchange for the prestigious title.

History will decide their fate and the country will go down the same direction as Venezuela, South Africa and, sad to say, maybe even Zimbabwe.

Malaysia Bharu: If you keep repeating a lie often enough you would begin to believe your own lie. Let us get it from the horse's mouth and the record speaks for itself.

Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad had no alternative but to resign when he lost the majority. We have all heard the recording of the Bersatu supreme council meeting of Feb 23 where Mahathir argues against leaving Harapan and Muhyiddin conceding to delay a week for the former to come to a decision.

But on that very same night, contrary to his own agreement earlier in the day, Muhyiddin and his gang of defectors together with the PKR frogs set in motion the Sheraton Hotel coup.

Agreements and disagreements are part and parcel of coalition politics, more so in Harapan as rookies learning the ropes of governance. It is more appropriate to say that Mahathir was pushed to a corner not by Harapan but by the frogs in Bersatu that were greedy for power at whatever cost.

It would not be fair to blame the PKR leader Anwar Ibrahim supporters clamouring for Mahathir to set the handover date. Especially since Mahathir kept shifting the dates, kept them guessing and at the same time was exploiting his own party extremists and the PKR faction led by deputy leader Azmin Ali to demand a full-term for himself (Mahathir).

Do you remember how midway Mahathir changed the “handing over promise” with a new condition that “Anwar must show majority support in Parliament”? That was a clear and present threat and a declaration that Bersatu and Azmin faction that were demanding a full-term for Mahathir will not support the transition in a parliamentary vote.

So the agreement and disagreement were not the work of the Anwaristas in Harapan but by the unscrupulous former PM and his most racist, despicable and immoral component unit in Harapan.

Fairman: Umno supreme council member Razlan Rafii, let me explain to you. The king uses the likelihood test when he appoints the PM.

There is no fixed mathematical formula required under Article 43(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution as it says "the Agong first appoint a PM among MPs who in his judgement is likely to command the confidence of the majority.'’

At this stage, the appointment is probationary subject to any challenge in the Dewan Rakyat through a no-confidence vote. Here Muhyiddin must get the support of at least 112 of the 222 MPs to remain in office. Or else he returns to the king to request for a dissolution of the House, failing which he must resign.

This is why the Langkawi MP's (Mahathir’s) motion should have been debated and allowed for a floor vote to be taken.

Sun: In a democracy, the king only appoints someone he thinks has the majority support. That someone only becomes legitimate when the king’s belief is established through a vote of confidence in Parliament.

On May 18, there was no vote. So, do not drag the royalty into the debate to legitimise something that is not legitimate. Arguments like these can be spun as fairy tales to put your grandkids to sleep. They don’t fly with the intelligent public. In fact, they demonstrate your own ignorance about governance.

You should move to a business where gullible customers might buy the fancy fables you spin.

Anonymous 435551439668541: PN may be constitutionally legal. However, it is simultaneously a backdoor and illegitimate government formed by treacherous, self-serving Malay-Muslim Harapan politicians who allegedly favour a return to cronyism, corruption and kleptocracy.

It is said with the open, transparent, fair and just governance that was being developed by Harapan, these self-serving Malay-Muslim politicians wanted a return to the bad old ways. And you have one of them who thinks that MPs and their families need not pay for their holidays and travel.

Newday: Still no bananas for you, Razlan. This government was not elected plain and simple. Yes, constitutionally there is a provision for a government such as yours. It is only in truly exceptional circumstances that this has happened.

Democratically, are you legitimate? No. Having a two-hour sitting without any business and no more Parliament dates fixed in the near future, it is clear that democracy as known for many years does not exist; so illegitimate you are. - Mkini