So what is the role of the Agong in the constitutional monarchy?

YOUR SAY | “The whole process assumes that all parties are acting in ‘good faith’.”

PMO defends bypassing parliament, says Agong prime minister

Blue mountains: It is clear that Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin wants to revoke the emergency ordinances without having tabled and debated them in parliament as stated in his letter to the king on July 23.

Despite the letter, the king called de facto On July 24, Law Minister Takiyuddin Hassan and Attorney General (AG) Idrus Harun ordered them to file and debate the ordinances, but this was not followed.

Muhyiddin and the GA met personally with the king on July 27 to explain their reasons for revoking the ordinances without being tabled and debated.

The three attempts – July 23, 24 and 27 – make it clear that Muhyiddin refused to allow the filing and debate of ordinances in accordance with article 150, paragraph 3, of the Constitution.

Ordinances must be tabled and debated in Parliament as only Parliament has the power to revoke them, under Article 150 (3).

Dr Raman Letchumanan: My God! The Prime Minister challenges the King. The Prime Minister must know that the King cannot engage with the cabinet in an exchange of views in public.

Now, let’s come to the main problem – that the king should act on the advice of the cabinet. Even though I dispute the way it’s applied in this case, suppose I’m okay with that.

The problem is that although the notice must be accepted by the king, it is nowhere stated in what form this notice must be taken.

Otherwise, it is tantamount to treating the king like a peon to do whatever is told to His Majesty without any argument; With all due respect and I apologize for saying that, but it’s just to make my point.

So what is the king’s role in a constitutional monarchy? Absolutely nothing?

In fact, the king, having accepted the advice, carried out exactly what was stipulated in the Constitution.

The king, having noted that the Parliament would meet on July 26, wished that the revocation of the emergency ordinances be deposited in the august Chamber for debate and decision.

He wanted the rakyat to have a say on this important issue through their deputies. So what is so wrong with tabling emergency ordinances in Parliament as provided for in the Constitution?

In fact, the cabinet’s intention to bypass Parliament is suspect. It appears cabinet is concerned that a vote on the issue indicates the level of confidence in the government, or lack of confidence.

But why worry when the government says it has an absolute majority? In any case, the government and the opposition, as well as the king, want the emergency ordinances to be revoked.

IndigoTrout2522: Now the PMO has made a statement that appears to contradict the Agong. He claims that Muhyiddin and Takiyuddin correctly followed the constitutional process. This seems to imply that the royal institution is wrong.

So who is telling the truth or who is right – the Agong or the PM?

In addition, will Muhyiddin allow a vote of no confidence in Parliament? If he has the majority as Deputy Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob claims, he has nothing to fear and that will calm the situation.

Hang Babeuf: With respect to the granting, deferral and automatic assumption by the executive of Royal Assent:

The whole process assumes that all parties are acting in “good faith”. The Prime Minister, his government Perikatan Nasional (PN) and their “de facto pseudo-legal factotum “clearly do not.

And the Agong has made it clear that this is his point of view and that of the leaders on the situation.

The Agong may withhold consent in such circumstances to seek clarification on the matter. This is his constitutional role and duty – not as a “sovereign Malaysian monarch” but as the constitutional head of state, the personification of constitutionalism and the guardian of last resort of its fundamental principles.

Orang-Lama: This statement from the PMO is mind-boggling to say the least. Is he implying that the official palace statement is wrong? Seriously?

The above action is reminiscent of an old adage: “From the frying pan to the fire”.

CH Y: The Federal Court must decide the following constitutional questions:

1. Is there a reasonable period of time for the Agong to act on the advice of the cabinet to proclaim or revoke an emergency and the ordinances therein or should the Agong act on a request? by letter from the cabinet on the date of the request, without further information and consultation?

2. In the event that Parliament is sitting under Article 150 (3) of the Constitution, may the Speaker of the House interpret the filing of the emergency proclamation and orders as the physical presentation of documents, without formal debate with motions from the floor to revoke or cancel the same thing while Agong assent to the revocation is still being obtained?

3. If the fundamental principle that legislative powers are vested in Parliament under Article 44 means that revocation and annulment under Article 150 (3) signify a process in which both chambers must adopt the motions and duly approved by the Agong, since the Parliament consists of the tripartite of both Houses and the Agong to confirm the validity of the proclamation and ordinances, or to revoke them once the state is d emergency ended, or to cancel them on the grounds that they were promulgated wrongly.

4. Arising from question 3, that the powers of revocation and annulment must be exercised in the two Houses of Parliament exclusively and not by the Agong only, because then the Executive will be supreme and against the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution.

Forgotten Citizen: Looks like PMO is challenging the palace. Fortunately the GA is not Tommy Thomas, otherwise he will fall on his head as a non-Muslim / Malay.

So what about now for all those who have insisted on a Muslim / Muslim majority government because even the Agong are not spared this time around?

I hope this will open the eyes of the majority in this country.


The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini the subscribers. Only paid subscribers can post comments. Over the past year, Malaysians have posted more than 100,000 comments. Join 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 present these opinions as facts.


Source link