Enough of political chicanery over the Royal Address

The speaker of the Dewan Rakyat, Pandikar Amin Mulia, who claims to be knowledgeable about parliamentary practice and procedure, should stop making overt or covert political statements in response to criticism by opposition members of Parliament about the contents of the Royal Address that was read out by the Agong at the state opening of Parliament.

As usual BN MPs will rise to the occasion supposedly in defence of the sovereign and spew venom at the opposition for belittling the role of the constitutional monarchy even to the extent of accusing their members of lese majeste or at worst sedition and treason. The usual group of Malay nationalists will rush to make police reports at the behest of Umno so that Malay voters will perceive the opposition to be disloyal to the Malay Rulers.

It is a fact that the Royal Address is written by the prime minister in consultation with the cabinet. The usual practice it seems is to form a cabinet committee for this purpose. After the draft is prepared the text is sent to the sovereign’s private secretary for any comment and minor amendments. In essence it is a policy speech of the government which outlines the legislative programme for the coming parliamentary year.

The sovereign acts on the advice of the cabinet and is bound by such advice as clearly stipulated in Article 40 (1) and (1A) of the constitution, the latter provision being an amendment that was passed at the behest of Umno during the tenure of the then-prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad who wanted to severely limit the discretionary powers of the Agong.

Therefore, the sovereign must accept the text of the Royal Address as drafted by the government even if he may disagree with some of the contents, especially on matters of policy or proposed legislation. As a constitutional monarch he cannot publicly express his views on these matters as he is bound by convention.

Although in private his views may be made known to the prime minister during their weekly audience, but at the end of the day the Agong must defer to the advice of the elected government.

It is wrong to imply that the speech is actually personal to the sovereign. To argue otherwise is untenable. Even the speech read by his Majesty during his official birthday celebration is written by the government. I believe as in the UK, the only occasion there when the Queen writes her own speech is during her annual Christmas Day address to the nation and the Commonwealth.

In Malaysia, I suspect that the same only applies to the Agong’s speech for the Hari Raya Aidilfitri celebration. But even on these occasions the sovereign cannot depart from the policies of his or her government or make adverse comments on such matters or about the leadership of the government.

Constitutionally is it correct to say that the government is His Majesty’s government, as provided in Article 39 of the constitution and that legislative authority is exercised by the Agong in Parliament meaning together with the Dewan Negara and the Dewan Rakyat, see Article 44, as alluded to by the speaker.

But these powers are vested in and exercisable by the sovereign only on the advice of the cabinet save and except for those matters that are part of his Majesty’s prerogative powers, see Article 40 (2).

Agong’s legislative authority severely limited

In fact the legislative authority of the Agong became severely limited when Umno moved the constitutional amendment to remove the sovereign’s power to reject bills passed by Parliament to the extent that the royal assent today has become perfunctory because a bill can still become law with or without the royal assent whatever its implications and our courts are reluctant to strike down laws that are inconsistent with the constitution or alter its basic structure.

If the Royal Address was personal to the sovereign as claimed by some government supporters, the Standing Orders of the House would not provide for the debate on the motion of thanks for the Royal Address that can take between 7 to 10 days.

This is a major policy debate in the House because if the government is defeated on the motion of thanks for the gracious speech it amounts to a vote of no-confidence and by convention the prime minister must tender the resignation of the cabinet to the sovereign and advice for the calling of an early general election.

In fact the Standing Orders do not permit the House to debate on matters that are personal to the rulers such as their conduct.

Is the opposition entitled to comment and criticise the gracious speech? Yes. The criticism is not directed at the person of the sovereign but the government that wrote the speech. Even a cursory reading of Erskine May on parliamentary practice and procedure will show that the opposition is entitled to move amendments to the motion of thanks if they disagree with the contents of the speech.

If the amendments are allowed, which is rare given the government’s majority in the House, the opposition vote in favour of the motion of thanks. But if the amendments are defeated and the opposition still maintain their objection to the speech, then they will by convention abstain on the motion of thanks.

But if they intend to defeat the government on a matter of confidence then the opposition will vote against the motion of thanks to force an early general election.

If the government as in this case decided to pepper the gracious speech with overtly political statements such as praise of the current leadership, extolling his supposed virtues and urging support for his administration until we achieve developed nation status, which in my opinion was a gross abuse of a great parliamentary occasion, the government should expect the opposition to react negatively.

When comparisons are made with Westminster, as our speaker has done, no British government in recent times has abused the occasion by preparing a partisan speech to be delivered by the Queen which such clear and obvious political undertones. And her Majesty being the epitome of constitutional monarchy given her 64 years on the throne would not have allowed such comments to be included in the speech.

Her Majesty’s private secretary would have been the first to alert the prime minister to the offending passages that if not removed would seriously weaken and undermine the integrity and impartiality of the great office of the Sovereign. Unlike here, in the UK, no British prime minister would dare to put the Queen in such a difficult position given the entrenched constitutional conventions and respect for tradition in that country.

Such caution and astuteness absent

Regrettably, in Malaysia such caution and astuteness is absent among members of the sovereign’s private office and the Royal Household whose primary duty should be to protect the ruler from all forms of political chicanery.

And a responsible government even if weak and universally loathed, should not write speeches that are overtly political simply in order to defend itself and preserve its hold on power in the face of incessant criticism over economic mismanagement and corruption.

The speaker should not act smarter than he already is by making ill-advised comments. The opposition at no time called the Royal Address as Najib Abdul Razak’s speech although the reality is that it was written by the prime minister. Neither did they allege that the Agong was a puppet of the government or that he is a liar. The opposition know better than that given that they want to replace the current government at the next general election.

The Agong was merely there to read out a speech written by the government that unfortunately contained inappropriate passages that were clearly political in nature. The opposition have a constitutional right and duty to object to the contents of the Royal Address since it is a policy speech. Similarly, they have a right whether to accept the advice or endorsement contained in the speech.

This is all part and parcel of democracy and it would be an abdication of their parliamentary duty if the opposition did not comment, criticise and condemn the government on the contents of the speech during the debate on the motion of thanks.

If the speaker, Pandikar Amin Mulia, wants to be more civilised than what our politicians are capable of in the Dewan Rakyat, he should resign and become the chairperson of some BN-dominated social club.

But do not make comparisons with Westminster, when you as the speaker have repeatedly failed or compromised on your duty to act fairly and impartially, to protect the interests of the minority in the House and to defend the rights and privileges of Parliament from executive encroachment.

---

GERARD LOURDESAMY is a practising lawyer. -Mkini