Tag Archives: confidence vote

Happy 2026! There’s light at the end …

Uncategorized

For the past five years, Malaysia has held on tenuously to three appointed governments, in that their prime ministers were not chosen by the majority of the MPs but appointed by the incumbent Yang DiPertuan Agong.

While it is constitutional for the king to appoint the prime minister and the Cabinet of the PM, what was never proven is whether the appointed PMs had the majority support of the MPs in the Dewan Rakyat, which is a constitutional requirement.

The first appointed government was led by the then Perikatan Nasional (PN) chairman and PN partner Bersatu president, Muhyiddin Yassin. He rallied the majority of the Malay parties to form a solid Malay-majority coalition which led a coup in 2020 against the first and incumbent Pakatan Harapan (PH) government helmed by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Muhyiddin was the first to go to the palace with his list of statutory declarations (SDs), claiming he had a majority. Based on his claim, the palace closed the gates to the contender, Mahathir, who also claimed and declared at a press conference that he had a majority.

No avenue was available, nor a chance given to prove which of these claims was correct and Muhyiddin was appointed the PM. Two years later, his coalition partner Umno threatened to leave the government, and following negotiations, Muhyiddin resigned and a Umno candidate, Ismail Sabri, became the next PM.

Sabri called for general elections in 2022 which resulted in a hung Parliament between PH and PN and PH chairman Anwar Ibrahim, the current PM, was appointed by the king without proof of majority support of the MPs in the Dewan Rakyat.

All three governments claimed to have achieved political stability, which they used to justify the king’s appointment without proof of majority support. The appointments, however, were met with great public protests which ended Muhyiddin’s tenure but Anwar’s term continues on the strength of a memorandum of understanding that all his coalition partners had to sign to ensure he completes a full term.

The decisions Anwar made or did not make were also met with unhappiness, disappointment and frustration over the fact that he was not acting consistently with his party’s manifesto and professed reform agenda. The people’s constitutional right to change a government could not be effected because of the MoU.

Hence, the claim of political stability to justify the appointment of a PM and his Cabinet is merely a semblance of the truth achieved at the expense of the democratic processes of the people and the people’s helplessness at the hands of elected representatives who were unable to stop the appointing of a PM without proof of majority support. This lapse in democratic choice happened, not once but twice.

It is very likely that with a fragmented Malay majority, the outcome of the next general election will also be a hung Parliament. Once again, will the MPs go against the federal constitution and allow the king to appoint the PM without proof of majority? Or will the king have to depend on SDs and who gets to the palace first?

In the event of a hung Parliament, currently, the decision is left to the king to appoint the PM who he thinks has a majority as it is stated in the constitution. But “who he thinks” must have a democratic basis in that the MPs have made their choice very clear through a proper legal process. The latter process is what is missing in choosing a Malaysian PM and, in its absence, when the king appoints without proof of majority, the choice becomes undemocratic.

There is only one solution to the problem of finding out which PM-designate has the support of the majority of the MPs: A confidence vote.

Unlike other democracies in the world, Malaysia has no legal provision for the Dewan Rakyat and/or MPs to call for a confidence vote to test the support of the PM among the MPs. In its absence, the choice of a PM, which constitutionally should be made by the MPs, will by default fall into the hands of the king.

In 2020, if a confidence vote had been called in the Dewan Rakyat, it would have proven whether Muhyiddin or Mahathir had the majority support. In 2022, likewise, a confidence vote would have clearly produced a PM of the choice of the people.

This is the apparent solution, but which MPs with uncertain people’s support will not want to introduce, as they may not want to offend the royal institution who they depend on to appoint the PM.

The deference to the royals, however, may be more cultural than factual. Malaysia’s royalty surely understands that they are the custodians of the people’s democratic institutions, conventions and processes and will or will have to respect the decisions the people make through their elected representatives to put into place laws and legal provisions that facilitate their democratic choice.

The MPs choose the PM. The king gives his stamp of approval that it was democratically done and appoints him.

This is the light at the end of the dark five-year tunnel Malaysia has gone through since 2020. It is the solution that is probably in the minds of the MPs, but which they may be reluctant to resolve for fear of resistance.

But 2026 calls for a determination and leadership on the part of the MPs to bring about a resolution and rally among themselves to put in place a law to call for a confidence vote. If MPs on both sides of the divide come together with a single-minded commitment to introduce such a law, the government and Speaker will have to take note and back it.

It will facilitate the installation of a democratic government with the mandate of the people in the event of a crisis outside of a general election. It would be a democratic, legitimate and constitutional government, sovereign and one which precludes external interferences or manipulation by any source in the choice of the PM, thus providing the unquestionable basis for political stability.

If the MPs are serious about strengthening the electoral processes of the people and establishing a stable government, they will enact a law for the calling of a confidence vote. It will bring about the much-needed stability that has eluded us for the past five years!

That’s my 2026 wish for Malaysia. Light at the end of the tunnel!

PN got its majority, your turn, Mr PM, to prove yours

Uncategorized, , ,

Perikatan Nasional (PN) has sent a strident message still ringing throughout the country that by winning 73% of the Malay vote in the just-concluded state elections, it has taken over from Umno the right to represent the Malays and form a government, which, in effect, is a notice given to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim that the days of his government are numbered.

The fact that PN won 146 of the 245 seats contested in the state elections held in Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah, Penang, Selangor and Negeri Sembilan while Pakatan Harapan (PH) won 99 does not mean that Anwar’s unity government will fall. The federal government remains but PN has proven it has the majority support of the majority race and is in the position to take the lead to form a new government.

Anwar can wait for that to happen and prolong political uncertainty or act decisively now to preempt it. In any democracy, when doubts are cast on the support of the majority for the prime minister (PM), responsible PMs turn to the vote to test their majority (Consider all the examples in Australia, United Kingdom and Canada, to name only the developed democracies). That is the democratic way of resolving the issue of a majority or a lack of it.

Anwar’s supporters have been churning out page after page of suggestions of what he must do to save his administration. They have suggested a Cabinet reshuffle to include more Malay ministers, emphasised the development of the economy, urged reaching out to PN president and former prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin to join the unity government, and encouraged giving more incentives to the Malays etc, etc. Yet, none — not even the MPs — have recommended following the democratic process.

This is simply a shocking lack of knowledge of the democratic principles upon which our parliamentary democracy is built according to the federal constitution and relying on those principles to find a solution. Any other way, while having its merits, is simply not democratic and, therefore, unconstitutional.

PN did not take to the streets to demand the right to govern. Its candidates calmly went down to the people through the democratic processes and won their majority support. By doing so, they have thrown the challenge to Anwar to prove his majority.

Now, it’s Anwar’s turn to prove his supermajority not in anyhow way as if this is a cowboy country without law and order where everyone does as he or she deems fit, but by democratic means. He must prove that his supermajority is an accurate reflection of the majority on the ground. Anwar needs to know what he apparently has yet to learn — that a prime minister is only as strong as his grassroots support, which is his responsibility to prove he has.

There are two ways a prime minister can prove his majority: Call for snap elections or a confidence vote in Parliament.

Calling for a snap election is not a suitable option now as a general election was concluded just about nine months ago. Calling for a confidence vote is the better and sole alternative left.

There are two possible ways to call for a confidence vote. Anwar calls for one or, even better, since he now has a supermajority, he introduces a law to amend the standing orders so that if a minimum number of MPs (the number can be fixed by the MPs after a debate) call for a confidence vote, it gets priority over all government matters, or he introduces a law to enable MPs to call for a confidence vote which must be carried out.

Once the law is passed, Anwar waits to see if MPs will call for a confidence vote. But, whether he calls for a confidence vote or the MPs call for one, he has to annul the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) he signed with all the parties who joined his unity government so that MPs vote freely, as representatives of their constituents and without compulsion.

If Anwar wins the confidence vote, he remains as prime minister of the unity government. If he loses, it is clear proof that he does not have the majority support of the MPs and he must facilitate a change of government. Either outcome will ensure that the issue of who has a majority is settled and political stability is restored.

A confidence vote is the only democratic option available now for Anwar to resolve the issue of a majority.

The question is whether Anwar will seek the democratic route to find a resolution or fall back to alliances and the backing of the king and other powerful forces to maintain the status quo and remain as prime minister?

If he chooses the democratic solution, he will restore political stability whether or not the status quo remains. If he does not, he should not be surprised if in a matter of time the status quo changes.

Historic MOU? At what price?

Uncategorized, , , ,

The MOU signed by Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob with Pakatan Harapan (PH) is touted as historic and no doubt it will be if the reforms are actually delivered. But at what price?

Firstly, the Sabri government remains an unconstitutional government because it hasn’t proven its majority in the Dewan Rakyat and signing an MOU with it is simply legitimising an unconstitutional government. I’m befuddled as to why MPs are willing to overlook this fundamental requirement to establish a legitimate government of Malaysia to make a deal outside of the Dewan Rakyat to get reforms.

Both Sabri and his predecessor, Muhyiddin Yassin, ignored the need for a confidence vote to prove their majorities and opposition MPs raised a hue and cry over it. But, now, they have gone silent. A proven majority legitimises the government but opposition MPs are closing their eyes to it and instead are making deals with an unconstitutional government for “democratic reforms” with no mention of a confidence vote. Doesn’t anyone see the irony in this? Selling out a fundamental constitutional right of MPs in exchange for other reforms that we are not sure the Sabri government can deliver according to the timeline or at all isn’t shortchanging Parliament?

Secondly, the MOU smacks of insincerity on the part of the opposition. PH wasn’t representing the entire opposition — just itself. It was not inclusive of other opposition parties and they have expressed the sentiments of being sidelined.

Another indication of its insincerity is evident in one item on its list of parliamentary reforms — equal funding for government and opposition MPs but not to the opposition MPs who didn’t sign the MOU. Why would Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim not seek equal funding for all opposition MPs? He is leader of all the opposition not just PH and all the opposition parties backed him to be prime minister when Muhyiddin Yassin resigned. But he reciprocated in the this way.

Why was PH willing to estrange its opposition allies and split the opposition to sign this MOU?

Perhaps, Anwar has realised that he may never become PM as long as he is in the opposition and feels the need to form new alliances to achieve his goal. Hence, his friendliness towards the Sabri government as Anwar has the support of the former’s party president Ahmad Zahid and party adviser former prime minister Najib Razak both of whom are his chums. Whether that relationship will benefit him is left to be seen. But one thing is certain. If he is pally with these two who lead the court cluster of Umno MPs facing criminal charges in court, it is likely he will drive other allies away who want to have nothing to do with the kleptocrats. The premiership will still elude him.

Unless, the brazen stubborn refusal to hold a confidence vote and the MOU are part of a larger behind-the-scenes conspiracy to prevent former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and his candidates from returning to a position of influence in the government.

It is hard to understand why Sabri and Muhyiddin refused to hold a confidence vote. Their argument that the constitution doesn’t spell it out is a no-brainer. The spirit and intent of the constitution demand it and surely they know it?

Both, perhaps, know what a majority of MPs know. A confidence vote will topple them firstly. Secondly, the opposition under Anwar’s leadership will not get the desired majority. There’s no one of stature in the government to take over, except for Zahid and Najib, but they are too tainted by corruption scandals to win a majority. The next best candidate would likely be Mahathir or a candidate he endorses. The fear is that he might win because he has support from the government side to give him or his candidate the majority.

Muhyiddin and now Sabri evidently don’t want this possibility to be played out with that specific outcome. The question is why? Why are they willing to transgress the constitution just to keep Mahathir out? In the absence of a rational explanation from them as to why they refuse, one can only surmise that the conspiracy theory is true.

But, who are behind Muhyiddin and now Sabri that they are confidently willing to abandon a confidence vote to remain in government on the grounds of the Agong’s appointment without the validation of the people in the Dewan Rakyat as is required in a parliamentary democracy? Zahid, Najib, or vested interests outside of Parliament?

If these people have got prime ministers in their pockets and these prime ministers are refusing to face a confidence vote on account it, they must be called out because they are compromising the integrity of the Dewan Rakyat and MPs must fight to ensure that never happens.

Hence, PH’s sincerity of motive is questioned. To acquiesce to the position now held by Sabri to prevent a confidence vote and be willing to sacrifice it in the name of reforms? In doing so, PH is failing to do its job of ensuring the independence and integrity of the Dewan Rakyat.

Is the MOU an attempt by Anwar to become PM in the same way Muhyiddin and Sabri became prime ministers? With the support of powerful vested interests, at the expense of Parliament?

Thirdly, the ends do not justify the means. To prevent the exercise of a fundamental democratic process — the confidence vote — is a dereliction of constitutional duty. Political behind-the-scenes machinations are common and some may go as far as to influence the vote in the Dewan Rakyat in the election of a prime minister. But the votes of MPs will render them powerless because MPs vote on behalf of their voters, fully aware they may be punished if they vote against voter interests.

To deprive MPs of that vote even for the sake of much-needed parliamentary reforms is to allow the Dewan Rakyat to be manipulated by incumbent prime ministers and those who support them.

The MOU should have been signed on the condition of a confidence vote. No MP should deprive another of his or her constitutional right to elect a prime minister. It is unconstitutional and compromises the integrity of the Dewan Rakyat.

Now, we have a situation where there will be no confidence vote to test Sabri’s majority and no fear of bringing the government down. Opposition MPs can shout themselves hoarse. The government will let them, knowing fully well their position is secure. The Dewan Rakyat becomes a toothless tiger — thanks to PH.

DAP’s Damansara MP and party national publicity secretary Tony Pua has said that PH loses nothing from signing the MOU. O, really? Well, let’s see if PH parties would lose votes.

Set the precedent, PM; face a confidence vote

Uncategorized, ,

What is more disappointing than new Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob’s rehashed lacklustre Cabinet is the fact that he has not passed a confidence vote in the Dewan Rakyat. By not facing a confidence vote, he has failed to uphold the spirit and intent of the federal constitution.

His Cabinet is no different from the previous prime minister, Muhyuiddin Yassin’s Cabinet — over-sized and packed with mediocrity or less of it. That is to be expected since Umno, Perikatan Nasional and its partners offer Ismail limited choices. But, why did he go ahead and make a prime ministerial decision without first proving his majority through a confidence vote, and finding legitimacy from it?

Ismail’s party, Umno, may argue that that his appointment is constitutional and democratic. Constitutional? Yes. But democratic? That can be argued. By not facing a confidence vote, he has opened himself up to questions regarding the legitimacy of his government.

Doesn’t Ismail know that in a democracy, if the prime minister and his Cabinet are not elected through a general election and is installed during mid-term because the previous government lost its majority, the new administration must first prove its majority through a confidence vote in the Dewan Rakyat before it can govern?

In the absence of a general election, passing a confidence vote is considered as rightful election to govern by the elected representatives of the people. In a democracy, a confidence vote is the only available instrument left for the people to elect a government of their choice through their elected representatives.

Critics can claim that the federal constitution says nothing about a confidence vote with regard to a mid-term takeover of a government. Article 43 (2)(a) of the federal constitution states that “the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall first appoint as Perdana Menteri (Prime Minister) to preside over the Cabinet a member of the House of Representative who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House”.

The Agong “in his judgment” based on the statutory declarations (SD) of 114 MPs rightly appointed Ismail as prime minister. It is also correct for the Agong to swear in the Cabinet based on Article 4(6) which states: “Before a Minister exercises the functions of his office he shall take and subscribe in the presence of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong the oath of office and allegiance and the oath of secrecy set out in the Sixth Schedule”.

This far, the steps taken by the Agong are correct since no where is it stated here that the appointed PM must face a no confidence vote as suggested by some constitutional experts.

However, between the appointment of the PM and his/her swearing in, no time frame is specified, which suggests there is room for MPs to devise a procedure where after the Agong’s appointment of the PM, the latter faces a confidence vote in the spirit of democracy and if the latter wins, the swearing in can proceed.

This would ensure that the Dewan Rakyat has irrefutable records that the appointed PM won or lost the confidence vote and that position can’t change as MPs who sign SDs might in a vote in the Dewan Rakyat. In this way, the legitimacy of the appointed PM will no longer be in question and if at all the Opposition strives to remove him/her, it would not be because of the legitimacy issue but because of the performance of the PM and his/her Cabinet.

A procedure or precedent must be set now to deter MPs from undermining a legitimately elected government if they can’t face a confidence vote to prove their majority.

In Ismail’s case, it is very unlikely that he will lose a confidence vote — unless by an unexpected twist of fate! Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim has declared that the Opposition Pakatan Harapan (PH) will not “complicate” things. What he means by that we don’t know, but Anwar lost yet another golden opportunity to take over the government when he failed to get the support of Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) on his very strong and secure 105 Opposition votes.

It was the second time he lost the chance to become PM. The first was last year when he sent a message out to the Opposition MPs to NOT vote against the Budget. If the Budget was not passed, Muhyiddin’s government would have fallen and Anwar might be PM today!

So, Ismail has nothing to worry about in facing a confidence vote. The Opposition is faltering; he might win it. He will lose it only if Anwar clearly demonstrates his leadership abilities and works out a fair and permissible power-sharing deal with GPS.

So, it is puzzling why Ismail hasn’t announced yet that he will be introducing a confidence vote in the Dewan Rakyat — unless, of course, he isn’t confident of his majority. All the more reason why he should face it and MPs should demand it!

Even if not spelt out in Article 43, a confidence vote is the final step in proving an appointed PM’s majority and we should set the precedent now to introduce it in accordance with the spirit and intent of the parliamentary democracy we practise and the federal constitution.

It’s the people’s hope that Ismail will set the precedent.