YOURSAY | Has PN crossed the Rubicon?

YOURSAY | ‘The PM is ill-advised to take the course of action he had taken so far…’

PMO defends bypassing Parliament, says PM already advised Agong

Hmmmmmmmm: I think this whole controversy hinges on 'intention'.

The Agong and his fellow rulers made it clear that they wanted Parliament to convene as soon as possible to debate the emergency ordinances among other things, and the PM, after realising he cannot delay Parliament without incurring the wrath of the rulers, decided that he would revoke the emergency ordinances just before Parliament convenes because the Constitution says that the Agong has to act on his advice.

But Parliament was set to convene in just a few days’ time. The Agong is allowed to ask for more information although it is not clear what “more information” encompasses. Can asking for the matter to be debated in Parliament be construed as seeking more information?

In any case, it seems that attorney-general Idrus Harun and de facto Law Minister Takiyuddin Hassan agreed with the Agong for the matter to be debated in Parliament. They have so far not rebutted that statement. So, since they have not allowed the matter to be debated in Parliament, they have lied to the Agong.

No matter what justification you use, you are already wrong for lying. The only matter that needs to be confirmed is: Did they agree with the Agong to have the matter debated in Parliament? Nothing else matters.

Fair Play: Look at it this way - a layperson’s understanding of the issue.

The PM ‘advises’ the Agong. In return, the Agong can either gives his consent or withholds it.

In this case, the Agong withheld it (or had not given his consent) and requested the matter be resolved in Parliament before giving his consent.

It is therefore presumptuous for the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to insist that the Agong has to listen and act on the advice of the PM under Article 40(1) and 40(1A) of the Federal Constitution.

Parliament is the legislative branch (it makes or unmakes laws of the country), while the cabinet (executive branch) carry out the duty of administering the government.

By deciding to ‘convey’ to the Agong that the cabinet had made the decision (acting in a legislative capacity) to revoke the emergency ordinances effective July 21 2021, Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin has overstepped his authority.

Some legal experts may even consider this act as treasonous. Clearly, Muhyiddin has crossed the Rubicon.

BlueShark1548: “The PMO said it had on July 22 received the draft of the ordinance annulment which stated that all the ordinances assented by the Agong during the emergency which began on Jan 11 will be cancelled effective July 21.

“It explained that the prime minister then wrote to the Agong on July 23 to advise the king to annul the emergency ordinances.”

So cabinet decided to revoke the ordinances on July 21 without apparently informing the Agong, and then advised the Agong two days later and expected the Agong to sign the revocation backdated to July 21?

Is that the way the PN cabinet treats the Agong? The Agong has no right to seek clarifications before he decides? Does the cabinet think Agong is a rubber stamp and has no constitutional duty towards the nation, his fellow rulers and the rakyat? And the Agong must approve immediately and no time given to His Majesty to consider?

There should be no doubt in any Malaysian's mind that the conduct of the PM, his cabinet, the AG and House speaker is deplorable and all should go. The new AG should consider whether such conduct constitutes treason to ensure it does not happen again.

Gerard Lourdesamy: How can the emergency ordinances be revoked without the consent of the Agong and without publication of the revocation in the Gazette?

The cabinet can advise the Agong but advice is not the same as consent. The government mislead the House when the law minister acting under the authority of the cabinet announced in the House that the ordinances had been revoked with effect from July 21.

Article 150(3) of the Constitution is clear in that the revocation can only be done if the ordinances are laid before Parliament, consented to by the Agong and published in the Gazette.

The PMO statement has not explained the misleading of the House by the law minister. If they had any dignity, the PM and cabinet would resign after the damning statement from the palace that effectively informed the nation of the rupture of the mutual trust and confidence between the sovereign and the PM.

House speaker Azhar Azizan Harun should also resign because he defended the law minister in the House on the premise that the revocation had been consented to by the Agong. The AG violated the Constitution when he disregarded the advice of the Agong who wanted the revocation of the ordinances to be laid before Parliament and debated.

During emergency rule, executive authority is vested in the Agong and he acts on the advice of the cabinet unless otherwise stated. The Emergency Ordinance No 1 of 2021 did not have a saving provision to the effect that Article 40 of the Constitution would continue to apply to the exercise of executive powers by the Agong during the emergency.

Even if this is disputed, the Agong cannot condone unconstitutional conduct by the government that violates the rule of law. How can a government function in a democracy by avoiding any votes in Parliament? Such an action by the executive violates the basic structure of the Constitution.

Malaysia Bharu: PMO said: "During the audience, the prime minister again conveyed the cabinet's advice about the annulment of the emergency ordinances and clarified the confusion that the opposition tried to create during the Dewan Rakyat sitting."

This is absurd. The PMO scoring its own goals? The Agong is adamant the motion is debated and the opposition is causing a commotion for the same reason. So how does this support the PM's position vis a vis not having betrayed the Agong's wishes?

Is the Agong a puppet without recourse even when his constitutional rights are denied?

BlueShark1548: All Malaysians are taught from young to respect and honour the Agong and his brother rulers and we find it totally unacceptable that PMO should issue a press statement to defend itself instead of giving an apology and seeking forgiveness from His Majesty.

The conduct of the PM and Takiyuddin borders on treason and is against Malay culture. The PM is ill-advised to take the course of action he had taken so far and is unlikely to be supported by majority of MPs and Malaysians.

With the PMO statement, the PM is now obliged to resign or he will throw the country into a constitutional crisis. As it is, we are already struggling with the Covid-19 pandemic and an economic crisis, and the PM by his actions is creating yet another crisis.

• YOURSAY | So, what's the role of the Agong in constitutional monarchy?

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. In the past year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.