This statement by the YDPA is very important. In a constitutional monarchy, the YDPA has the right, indeed the duty, to counsel or warn the His Majesty’s government. This is a warning by the YDPA that the Cabinet had acted against the constitution.
By convention, such warnings are always confidential between the YDPA and the PM. In this case, it was made public, which is unprecedented. Views might differ on whether this goes beyond the role of the YDPA but I think it’s necessitated by the actions of this government.
I hope none of what had transpired in the past year or so will be repeated again, the constitution is being stretched to its limits and a lot of very dangerous precedents are being created. We still have a chance to set all these right.
1. PMO’s statement doesn’t do this government any good. The fact remains there is no revocation signed by the YDPA and no gazette of the same as required by law. Takiyuddin’s statement that ordinances were revoked is therefore false and misleading #parlimenmalaysia#KerajaanGagal
2. PMO’s statement in fact confirms that the PM, Takiyuddin, and the Cabinet knew on 26 July that there was in fact no revocation signed by the YDPA.
3. By 27 July, when the PM met the YDPA to advise on the revocation of the ordinances, the PM had no power to do so anymore because Parliament is sitting. Under Art 150(3), once Parliament sits, government cannot revoke ordinances anymore, it can only be annulled by Parliament.
1. Whether laying the ordinances doesn't mean voting on it, it's important to point out that Art 150(3) goes on to say "shall cease to have effect if resolutions are passed by both Houses annulling such Proclamation or ordinance". This requires voting. #Parlimen
2. One must also look at the spirit and purpose behind Art 150(3), which is to safeguard against executive powers during emergency. If you lay the ordinances without voting on it, then Parliament can't exercise it's supervisory function under 150(3).
3. Those words in Art 150(3) "shall cease to have effect if resolutions are passed by both Houses annulling such Proclamation or ordinance" become meaningless.
2. Section 65 of the Interpretation Act 1948/67 (IA) applies to any written law before 18 May 1967 and to subsidiary legislation made under such written law. Written law includes the Federal Constitution.
3. Section 66 of the IA defines “subsidiary legislation” to include a proclamation, rule, regulation, order, notification, by-law or other instrument made under any Act of Parliament, Ordinance, Enactment, or other lawful authority, and having legislative effect.
1. Parliament sits again. What happens to the Emergency? One would expect the Parliament to debate the proclamation of emergency (POE) and any ordinance made once it re-opens. Voting should take place to approve or annul the Emergency under Art 150(3). This isn't happening.
2. However, the government has different ideas. When the agenda for parliamentary business was released, it only allocated time for “Statements by Ministers”. Under the Dewan Rakyat’s Standing Orders, the government decides on the order of business.
3. The government’s business takes precedence over other issues. Rather than tabling the POE and the ordinances as motions for them to be debated and voted upon, the government is instead opting to “brief” the Parliament. The briefings will be for the entire 5 days.
1. We need to be very alarmed of the grave consequences of a Proclamation of Emergency. A Proclamation of Emergency can only be issued when a grave emergency exists whereby the security, or economic life, or public order in Malaysia is threatened.
2. A political emergency for the powers that be is not a ground for emergency. The failure to pass a budget in Parliament is not a threat to economic life, it’s just part of democracy.
3. Once a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, the Prime Minister is empowered to make laws without going through Parliament by way of ordinances promulgated by the YDPA (the YDPA acts on advice of the Prime Minister).