YOURSAY | Who are you trying to convince, Art Harun?

 

YOURSAY | ‘It's very simple. Muhyiddin appointed him for a reason.’

COMMENT | No-confidence motion – setting the record straight

Fair Play: I am a layman. I am using logical reasoning to write this comment.

Azhar Azizan ‘Art’ Harun, what are you talking about the speaker of the House contravening the Standing Order by allowing a private motion to test whether a newly-appointed prime minister has the confidence of the majority of the House?

And please explain why tabling a motion to test whether the appointed prime minister has the confidence is a private motion? It is the first and most important motion before all other businesses of the House could take place.

Since his appointment as the 8th PM on March 1, 2020, Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin has not been tested whether he has the confidence of the majority of the House through a test of confidence or no confidence.

It is almost eight months into Muhyiddin premiership and the rakyat have no idea whether the PM has the majority support of the House to enact or promulgate laws and yet you said government matters take precedence over the tabling of a motion of confidence in the House.

Who are you trying to convince?

What if a no-confidence motion is passed now if you allow a motion to be tabled and which might confirm that the PM did not command the majority of MPs supporting him? That would trigger a constitutional crisis, don’t you think?

Hang Babeuf: Sorry, Mr Speaker, but...

The very meaning of a "no confidence" motion is negated, and its entire and proper purpose is frustrated and precluded if the moving of such a motion [simply "getting it onto the agenda" for a hearing and discussion] requires the permission ["endorsement" or "OK"] of a minister in/of the same government that is to be the subject of such a motion.

If such ministerial "enabling" is deemed essential - if ministerial consent is required to make it possible - most "no confidence" motions would and could never be put. Ever. Anywhere.

That is "as plain to see as the nose on one's face". Or, "on the face of it," as the lawyers like to say.

There can be no parliamentary government, no parliamentary supremacy or sovereignty, if the very possibility of "no-confidence" motions in/against the Executive can be "put out of play" [i.e., way down on the agenda, where they must and can only die] and so precluded by that same Executive.

That is the nub of the matter. "On the face of it"... And at its very heart.

Apalah: Surely, any member of the House can table a procedural motion before any business of the government to test whether there is a government at the instance by a motion of no confidence on the PM and his government.

This procedural motion can in fact be debated and voted upon by the members of the House.

A motion of confidence is set to test whether there is a government. When the PM and his government does not enjoy the confidence of the House, then there is no government.

Should the speaker still refuse to recognise the proposed procedural motion on the table, then the House can table a motion of no confidence on the speaker.

The speaker will have to remove himself as the motion is debated and voted upon by the House. In the interim, any member can be nominated to be the temporary speaker for this motion of no confidence on the speaker.

It is utterly wrong for Parliament to deny a motion of confidence on the PM and his government to be treated as not more important than the business of a government which has lost the confidence of the House.

GrayPuffin9604: It's very simple. Muhyiddin appointed him for a reason. His unwritten job description (by Muhyiddin) is to ensure that no vote of confidence shall take place, period.

So he is doing a pretty good job for Muhyiddin, but it’s bad for democracy. I think he will live to regret his action.

Prominority: Give power to a person and you know the true character of that person. Art Harun displayed his good side before becoming the speaker.

Now, he is exposing his bad and ugly side by playing devil's advocate.

The Watcher: Mr Speaker, take courage. And take succour from the knowledge that whatever you say, these sour grapes will still try their best to discredit you. You're keeping to the law and that's what matters.

History will judge you kindly. Now go to sleep and stop reading these nasty comments by nasty people.

GoldenFalcon0661: I think the bigger issue is that the speaker should not personally descend into a public debate of his decisions.

His letter to Gua Musang MP Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah with his reasons stated therein is already in the public domain and he should leave it at that. Imagine if a judge did the same thing on Malaysiakini to justify a judgment handed down by him?

Guyintheglass: When the current PM was appointed, there was no clear evidence that he has the support of the majority of the MPs.

Therefore, it would be of public urgency and importance for the PM to test his support in Parliament when the opportunity arises. Without that, he cannot claim to have the support of the majority of the MPs.

If the House speaker cannot decide on the urgency of motion or any matter, why then did the government move to remove the previous speaker? There was no 14-day notice given for a new speaker to be elected, was there?

There are laws and there are conventions. The current PM has not proven he has the support of the majority of the MPs in the House. He continues to sit in that chair without the mandate of the elected MPs. How is that legitimate and not urgent?

Cynical: That’s why MPs have to resort to statutory declarations (SDs) to show that the PM has lost the confidence of the majority. Because to wait for the motion to see the light of the day, one has to wait until the cows come home.

Moontime: Let’s simplify things for a moment. Suppose the Parliament is a ship and is in danger of sinking.

Priority no 1 is to plug the hole that caused the ship to sink (motion of no confidence). All other matters will have to be postponed. - Mkini