Parliament fiddles even as Covid-19 ravages the rakyat

 

Unprecedented events unfolded in quick succession the past five days that struck at the core of Malaysia’s nationhood. 

The Parliament debacle and subjugation, utter disregard for the constitution, the cabinet misleading the instructions of the king, and the king admonishing with disgust the cabinet he appointed to exercise his powers. The nationhood crisis has taken centre stage over the worst pandemic ever at its height.

Much will be written on this developing crisis. I am not a professional writer, but one trained in exact sciences. I take issues at face value, interpret them literally, and guided by logic analyse situations and offer possible scenarios. Rather than an essay, I present this opinion in the form of talking points so that the message filters through. I stand corrected if there are factual errors.

Shall king act on advice?

Many have quoted extensively Article 40 (1) of the Constitution, which is the key point of contention. However, the second part of the Article states “…; but shall be entitled, at his request, to any information concerning the government of the Federation, which is available to the cabinet”.

This is exactly what the king is doing, to seek further information from the cabinet. As the king said, he accepts the advice to revoke the emergency ordinances (EO), but he needs further information because it raises many valid questions, especially on backdating. To me, it seems the king is perfectly following the constitution. But surprisingly, I had not seen this aspect ventilated by experts from both sides.

The cabinet seems to imply in exercising this power, the king has to follow strictly not only the substance but also in form without any delay or questions asked. So the cabinet sent the instrument of revocation and expected the king to sign immediately. The king is a constitutional monarch, not a puppet or rubber stamp.

Have Emergency Ordinances lapsed?

At midnight on Aug 1, the emergency ordinances will lapse as per Article 150(7) since it was not legitimately revoked and gazetted before that. That means the EO will stay in force until Feb 1, 2022. Any further debate may be academic. I am not sure, any annulment by the Parliament after this date, retrospectively, will be in order.

Already the government and experts are sending mixed signals on whether the EO still apply. But I believe the well-conceived plan by the cabinet has come to fruition. All the weird actions since July 26 was to avoid a vote in parliament as per Article 150 (3) at all cost. 

They must have taken for granted the king would accede to revoke EO in the way the advice was provided. The EO is the main plank for their political survival, and it seems they finally got it. However, the king has pulled the rug under their feet, as explained later.

To lay or to debate

The speaker must be given due credit for the way he shut down any attempt to debate the EOs. The opposition was waving the constitution frantically for four straight days, but the speaker used the procedural standing orders (SO) literally throwing the constitution into the bin.

However, on July 29, the speaker had a bright idea to uphold the constitution and achieved what he wanted. To compare the term “laid” in Article 150 (3) with its usage in other articles. The vociferous opposition acquiesced, and instead begged for invoking residual powers.

The speaker proudly announced that Article 99 uses the term “laid” for annual financial statements. And therefore financial statements are not debated. Finance experts know the Parliament has no competence or statutory authority to approve financial statements. Only duly appointed auditors can approve financial statements. Parliament may debate, but any reservation should be addressed by the auditors. That is why the term “laid’ is used here.

Likewise, the cabinet said printed copies of the EO were literally laid on the table, and therefore Article 150 (3) is fully satisfied; probably another first in the democratic world. But wait. It is undisputable that the king who promulgated the EO has the final authority to revoke it. In this case, the king has expressly stated that he wants the EOs debated in Parliament. So the word “laid’ in Article 150 (3) cannot be literally translated or compared to its usage elsewhere.

The king was following the constitution to its letter. Even though he has the authority, he wants the EO to be debated transparently by the people, through their representatives. Otherwise, the king would be implicated in the deception of the cabinet; if the king accedes to the revocation just a day before, on a Sunday, Parliament is convened to debate the revocation.

I find it strange the legal and finance minds in the opposition did not raise this point, even though the speaker would have brushed it aside. And what a comparison to make!

Yes, or no?

Like the word “as-soon-as-possible” before, a simple yes-or-no that could be uttered in one second could have saved hours of acrimonious debate wasted each day. The cabinet, supposedly, was craving to answer but was held back by the speaker who ruled as per the SO the answer can only be given on Aug 2, which of course is a well-choreographed reason. The world must be aghast at our level of education.

When evil is intended, karma shows its hand. The government shot itself in the foot. They assumed the king will just watch all this drama, implicating the king himself, and keep quiet. They didn’t expect the rebuke that came at noon on July 29. Just hours away from success, all hell broke loose. Now the cabinet is fighting for its own survival. A wounded animal is extremely dangerous.

Aug 2

Everyone was looking forward to this date, but the PM announced the sitting is adjourned for health reasons, and no alternate date was given. In any case, this would have been a non-event.

Previously, the PM, or rather the speaker, did not allow any motions, especially on the EO as prescribed by the constitution and instructed by the king. Isn’t it strange, the king, cabinet and the opposition unanimously want the EO to be revoked and yet a motion is not allowed? Well, this confirms that politicians will never trust each other, even in their own bloc. Yet they want the rakyat to place full trust in them.

The fact the PM and cabinet are engaging in a public tit-for-tat with the king indicates it will be a duel to the death, figuratively.

Potential scenario

So who will win, the king on behalf of the rakyat or the cabinet fighting for its own survival? To me, justice will always prevail even if it is delayed.

Let’s analyse the current situation before we come to a conclusion. Is a cabinet really needed to govern, other than being a link between civil service and Parliament for the purpose of accountability?

Based on my 34 years of civil service experience, in Malaysia and Asean, I can say the civil service is programmed to work best on its own. In recent times, it appears the cabinet has subjugated the civil service, and their performance is heavily curtailed if not abused.

What about the opposition? One has to watch the recent parliament videos as a spectator and the answer is clear, they too are fighting for their revival. At best, it will be a case of jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

We are in a severe health crisis that requires firm and steady hands working under the authority of the king. The executive and aspirants should be put on garden leave. All resources should be channelled to fight the pandemic. And it should be a regimented effort lasting a month or at most two; not a never-ending lockdown with a recovery plan that is stillborn.

The king as the Supreme Commander has the answer in his hands. No one can take that authority away. The utmost priority should be to save the life and livelihood of the rakyat. It is indeed a blessing that the emergency ordinances will be in force for the next six months. - Mkini

---

RAMAN LETCHUMANAN was director, Environment/Conservation, Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment (1993-2000), head of Environment/ Haze/Disaster Management, Asean Secretariat, Jakarta (2000-2014), and senior fellow at S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (2014-2016). Email: raman.asean@gmail.com.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.