Tag Archives: constitution

A leaders-imposed angst people don’t need

Uncategorized, ,

Early last month, Warisan president Shafie Apdal sent a warning to Sabah governor Musa Aman that he would take the latter to court if Warisan wins the upcoming state elections with a simple majority but is denied the right to form the state government with him as chief minister (CM).

Warisan plans to contest all 73 seats in the Sabah state elections that must be called within 60 days of Nov 11 this year, when the state assembly automatically dissolves.

The Sabah party is hopeful of winning a simple majority but Shafie’s warning is a reflection of the uncertainty of validating the electoral outcome because of an amendment to the state laws on the appointment of the CM and the state government.

Article 6(3) of the Sabah state constitution states: “The Yang di-Pertua Negeri shall appoint as Chief Minister a member of the Legislative Assembly who in his judgement is likely to command the confidence of a majority of the members of the Assembly.” In Sabah the governor is called the Yang di-Pertua Negeri.

This law remains intact. It is in line with Article 43(2)(a) of the federal constitution which states:  the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (the King) shall appoint a Prime Minister who, in his judgment, is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Dewan Rakyat.

Article 6(3) of the Sabah law, however, had another law, Article 6(7), that provides a clear instruction on how the CM is chosen. Article 6(7) states: “For the purpose of Clause (3) of this Article, where a political party has won a majority of the elected seats of the Legislative Assembly in a general election, the leader of such political party, who is a member of the Legislative Assembly, shall be the member of the Legislative Assembly who is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly.”

Article 6(7) however — despite a great deal of furore, especially by the Opposition party Warisan — was repealed in May last year. This means the Sabah governor can now appoint any member of the state assembly who, in his judgement, is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the Assembly, whether or not that candidate actually has the numbers.

When Article 6(7) was deleted, the clarity it gave to Article 6(3) was removed. In its place is an ambiguity that is left to the governor to resolve, and that is the source of the angst Sabah parties not aligned to the governor are feeling and the reason for Shafie’s warning.

Musa is or was an Umno strongman in Sabah, and the fear is that Umno even without a simple majority may be chosen to form the state government on the basis that with its allies it “is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the Assembly”.

While this is sheer speculation until proven otherwise after the Sabah state elections, such a precedent occurred at the federal level, not once but twice. In 2018, after the Sheraton move, Muhyiddin Yassin of Perikatan Nasional (PN) was appointed PM even though resigned PM Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad claimed he had a majority.

In 2022, after the general elections, when the coalition Pakatan Harapan (PH) won the most seats but was unable to form a majority government because Sarawak’s GPS and Sabah’s GRS were allied with PN giving it a simple majority, PH’s leader, Anwar Ibrahim, was appointed PM, after which the then king spoke to the other parties, and GPS, GRS and Umno joined forces with Anwar.

The argument to justify the king’s action was Article 40(2)(a) of the federal constitution which states: “The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may act in his discretion in the performance of the following functions, that is to say: (a) the appointment of a Prime Minister”. 

Whether the king’s discretion means he has absolute power to appoint a PM by royal decree, or to disregard another MP’s claim of a simple majority, or to suggest the formation of a unity or any other kind of government, or direct or advise political parties to join whichever party or coalition to form a majority is something for constitutional law experts to sort out and will not be discussed here.

What is suggested here is that the ambiguity of the existing laws, whether at the federal or state levels, imposes a stress on voters. Voters have no certainty that the team they vote for, whose head they support as the next PM or CM or Mentri Besar (CM in Peninsula states), will be respected by the king, governor or sultan.

In this scenario, voters may think that their votes do not count and it may disincentivise them to vote. They are now not free to choose the leaders of their choice because that choice may be overruled by the king, governors or sultans who may be acting according to the provisions of the law but the elected leaders are failing to ensure that the laws are interpreted and applied to defend and uphold the democratic choices of the voters as espoused in the federal constitution.

In a democracy, voters should never go to the polls with the uncertainty that their vote won’t count. And it is the leaders who must ensure that the people’s votes count.

The fact that the voters’ elected representatives in Sabah chose to constrain the voter’s free choice shows that their elected representatives are more interested in forming a government by appointment rather than on the mandate of the people. It’s the same with leaders at the federal level.

The majority of Malaysian voters may not understand that their democratic rights are protected by the federal constitution and so may not fight for them. All the more reason why the leaders must fight on their behalf to protect those rights — not maintain a guilty silence, like the people have been witnessing.

Shafie has vowed that if his party wins the Sabah elections and he can form a government with a simple majority, he will restore Article 6(7).

The Sabah election will show if the voters understand their democratic rights and vote for a party/coalition that restores that right. If they do, it is an encouraging sign that the voters know their rights and will support the party that respects it.

Perhaps, at the federal level, we need a law like Article 6(7) so that a PM is chosen on the evidence of majority support from the Dewan Rakyat. Perhaps, like, Warisan, a Peninsular party/coalition will promise to introduce such a law.

Then, there will be clarity in appointing a PM with the mandate of the people. The people deserve no less

The people must know what the MPs have done …

Uncategorized, ,

Recently Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim asked a question that is very telling. The fact that he asked this question and the apparent answer reveals what is fundamentally wrong with the current administration.

Anwar could not understand the volley of criticisms fired at him over a Chinese New Year function he attended with his Cabinet members and supporters at which they participated in the tradition of raising yee sang (raw fish salad) into the air to bring good fortune and prosperity in the new year.

He could not understand the negative reactions from the mainly Malay opposition groups who felt it didn’t reflect the culture of the majority Malays, to which Anwar asked why there was no opposition to tossing yee sang by previous administrations but his was targetted.

It must be explained here that Anwar’s administration has been roundly criticised for every key decision he and his ministers have made or did not make over domestic issues since he was appointed prime minister.

When the issues involved non-Muslims, like the KK Mart, heel and socks issue, or controversial business deals like Blackrock and U Mobile, he maintained a frustrating silence, disappointing his mostly non-Malay minority urban voter base. When the criticisms were aimed at other issues he would counter with explanations no one agreed with.

But, over the yee sang issue, his question reflected he had no answer and that reveals his poor grasp of the concerns of the majority race who isn’t his voter base because they didn’t vote for him but who he is wooing for a political future for himself and his coalition, Pakatan Harapan (PH).

So, Anwar could not understand why he was criticised for participating in an event all previous PMs had done without criticism.

The PM has been bending over backwards to appeal to the Opposition’s Malay majority voter base as they form the majority race in the country but are not represented in his administration. He has increased salaries to the Malay-majority civil service and channelled funds to the poorer Malay-majority states and various projects to reach the B40 group most of whom are Malays.

But these same people are his worst critics. So, he has real reasons to be baffled. But, his bafflement is a reflection of his lack of understanding of a basic tenet of democracy: People vote for those they trust will protect their interests.

In Anwar’s case, the Malay majority he is wooing does not trust him. They are the majority by virtue of being the majority race but they didn’t vote for him and yet he was appointed the prime minister with minority parties supporting him. So, the majority has no confidence that this minority PM will put their interests before those of the minorities he represents.

The majority race– the Malays — did not criticise previous administrations because the latter had the support of the Malay majority who elected these administrations together with some minority groups. And when these administrations made concessions that included the non-Malay minorities the Malay base was not threatened because they had the confidence that their interests would nevertheless be protected.

Anwar apparently does not know the majority to understand their underlying anger. The yee sang incident is the clearest case so far that shows the lack of confidence of the majority in Anwar’s administration. That is what the above answer to his question reveals. Anwar does not have the confidence of the majority, yet, he remains as prime minister.

In a thriving democracy, an elected prime minister, once realising he/she does not have the support of the majority will immediately act to test his/her majority in Parliament. That has not happened in Malaysia with the current administration. The primary reason for this is simply the reluctance of MPs to defend the federal constitution and democratic principles despite the fact that the unity government was appointed without proof of majority support as required by the constitution.

The Opposition Perikatan Nasional (PN) did make several attempts to gain support from other political parties to topple the incumbent and appointed unity government but failed mainly because MPs wanted to make deals, rather than seek the ultimate goal of constitutional conformity which is the primary responsibility of MPs.

In doing so, these MPs failed to understand that they were and still are betraying the people who trusted and elected them to advance their interests — not make deals to ensure their own political survival.

Apparently, PN itself wasn’t confident of its understanding of the constitution to take the issue to the people who like the politicians also do not have a confident grasp of the constitution. If instead, PN had gone on a media blitz to educate the public, supporters of political parties, having understood the issues involved, might have exerted sufficient pressure on their MPs to ally with PN to restore a constitutional government. That, too, didn’t happen.

Instead, the MPs who swore to uphold the federal constitution chose the easy way out when faced with a situation where the constitution was not fully complied with, by going along with the flow rather than challenging it to ensure constitutional fidelity.

The federal constitution which enshrines our parliamentary democracy must never be compromised at all cost. When one or two of their peers transgress the constitution, the rest of the MPs must be quick to censure and discipline them. Failing to do so is a betrayal of the trust of the people who elected the MPs because the constitution is the fundamental rule of law that the people fall back on to protect their interests.

Some MPs may argue that sometimes there are conflicting interpretations regarding some laws in the constitution. Agreed. But MPs must understand that democracy — specifically parliamentary democracy in our case — is the fundamental basis of the federal constitution and whatever the interpretations it must conform with democratic principles and never usurp Parliament as the supreme authority of this country.

When MPs don’t understand this and will not uphold the constitution and, instead, get away with not complying with it, what guarantee do the people have that in the face of a national crisis, the MPs won’t sell off the people’s rights or national sovereignty for the sake of expediency and political survival? That would be the collapse of the nation.

The people must know what our MPs have done or failed to do and realise what a serious transgression they have committed against the people. The people must target the leaders of the political parties who allowed this state of affairs to happen and continue. In the next general elections, the people must send a clear message that these leaders who are also MPs who do not stand up for the constitution will be punished.

If the MPs will not fight to uphold the constitution, the people must.

Will the MPs act?

Uncategorized, ,

Another Umno politician has been given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA). Former prime minister Najib Razak and former Treasury secretary-general Mohd Irwan Serigar Abdullah got off their six CBT charges involving 1MDB-linked company International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC) with a DNAA.

Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Muhammad Jamil Hussin granted the DNAA on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to hand over classified documents crucial to the case.

Reacting to the decision, Pejuang information chief Rafique Rashid Ali, who is a lawyer, said that “Section 2C of the Official Secrets Act 1972 (Act 88) is clear that the power to remove the ‘official secret’ status of documents lies with the minister”.

The question that is asked is why a minister or the prime minister had failed to lift the official secret status of the documents even though this case has been going on for six years. So far, typically, no answer has been given.

What is even more disappointing is that not one MP queried the prime minister regarding this issue either through press statements or in the Dewan Rakyat.

This seems to be the characteristic of our MPs. Don’t debate. As a result, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is carrying along unchecked. Whether the government was formed democratically, whether separation of powers is practised, the granting of government contracts like the 5G to royalty-linked companies, the Mufti Bill, the House Arrest Bill that is part of Budget 2025 all touch on the federal constitution but the people don’t see the MPs fighting to see that the constitution is followed.

Then, Anwar goes off on his globe-trotting trips and no MP queries whether the PM is spending more time abroad than addressing issues at home. So far not one issue whether abroad or at home has been resolved.

Anwar has left a trail of missteps, particularly in making undemocratic decisions. All the issues mentioned earlier, his performance and the latest, namely the DNAA to Najib and Irwan Serigar, raise issues as to whether he is following democratic principles and acting consistently with the federal constitution or acting in whatever way he is inclined to.

These are very serious issues, and it is the people’s right to have the MPs address them. That fundamental duty of a MP is not evident among our MPs. Malaysian MPs must be the first MPs in the world who know exactly what is going on and will not take steps to restore constitutional fidelity.

Silence means tacit consent, and the MPs will have to answer to the people.

Neither is it enough for the Opposition to just reject a controversial bill because it will nevertheless be passed since Anwar has a two-thirds majority coerced by a MoU. And more constitutionally controversial bills will follow. Unless the Opposition works very hard to win government MPs over to deprive the government of the needed majority to pass every such bill. That would be a monumental task and an exercise in futility!

Nevertheless, the MPs must query the PM. He must be grilled until a satisfying answer is given that conforms to the constitution. If he fails to answer, then the MPs must act. The constitution offers avenues for MPs to seek recourse to protect the people’s interests.

Seeking a change through constitutional recourse does not mean going against any one or any institution or any law. It is simply exercising the constitutional rights of the citizens which MPs have been entrusted to undertake.

It takes courage and leadership to check a government that is erring, and it is the responsibility of the MPs to provide that check and balance. They must not let the people down. And they must act now if they want a government that abides by parliamentary democracy. If MPs wait until the next general election to form a new government, the federal constitution would have been changed without the mandate of the people.

The MPs must not let that happen. But, will they act now? That is what the people are yet to witness.

When the constitution is not followed …

Uncategorized, ,

A motion to challenge former prime minister Najib Razak’s pardon has been filed to be raised at the Malaysian Bar’s annual general assembly tomorrow.

The motion has been filed by former Malaysian Bar president Zainur Zakaria. It states that the “incoming Bar Council, on behalf and in the name of the Malaysian Bar, challenges the legality of the said decision by the Pardons Board, by urgently instituting judicial review proceedings against the Pardons Board and Najib” (Malaysiakini, March 15).

It also stated that the Pardons Board is viewed as “acting ultra vires of Article 42 of the Federal Constitution, and in contravention of the law, in reducing Najib’s jail sentence to half and his fine to RM50 million” as quoted in the same Malaysiakini report.

If the Pardons Board’s pardon of Najib is unconstitutional, it is only right that it is challenged in court and what is constitutional is clearly defined by the court and must be adhered to. The question, however, is whether the Pardon’s Board will abide by the court decision.

Already, we have a situation where a state government has defied a Federal Court decision and nothing is being done about it.

A challenge, similar to Zainur’s motion, was mounted against the PAS-led Kelantan government’s 18 syariah criminal code provisions. The Federal Court nullified 16 but early this month, the Kelantan state legislative assembly passed a motion to re-enact the 16 provisions in a clear defiance of the Federal Court decision.

This is a very serious contravention of the constitution but why is the unity government led by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim keeping quiet about it? Isn’t it the responsibility of the federal government to make the state government conform to the laws of the land?

If the Kelantan state government is allowed to get away without complying with a Federal Court decision, what is the message that is communicated to the people? That the federal government is powerless to enforce the law of the land?

If the federal government decides to use force to make the Kelantan state government conform to the federal constitution, it would be seen as an abuse of power and make the unity government even more unpopular.

Besides, the Kelantan state government may dig in its heels and turn around and tell the unity government that it has no moral grounds to discipline the state when the constitutionality of the federal government itself is questionable.

As a response to Kelantan’s recent move, one voice expressed its concern. The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Taoism (MCCBCHST) yesterday called on the Attorney-General (AG) to intervene in the Kelantan case and act to uphold constitutional democracy.

Can and will the AG act without the backing of the government?

The people are witnessing what will happen when governments fail to act according to the constitution. This is just the beginning. If this trend of allowing political and religious expediency to trump the federal constitution continues it may lead to the eventual slide in the enforcement of law and order.

No one must be silent on this fundamental basis for law and order — complying with the federal constitution. Like MCCBCHST, people must speak up and demand that their MPs conform with the federal constitution. If MPs and government leaders do not, they must know that their parliamentary and state seats are not assured.

MPs and and political leaders must understand that they will first be held only to the federal constitution. If they fail to comply with the federal constitution, nothing else justifies.

What’s the basis for Anwar’s decisions?

Uncategorized,

Just before Chinese New Year, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said that the status of Sabah and Sarawak as regions rather than states must be referred to the rulers before the issue is submitted to the Cabinet for consideration.

Speaking to reporters after chairing a Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) meeting, he said, “We need to respect the process.” However, he gave no explanation as to whether this process was spelt out in the federal constitution.

The people have a right to know if the decision he has made to refer a government matter such as the MA63 to the rulers before they are discussed by the Cabinet and then Parliament, is within the ambit of the federal constitution.

In the parliamentary democracy that Malaysia practises, the prime minister is the head of government and is first and foremost accountable to Parliament and presents all matters of government such as amendments to the federal constitution to Parliament first. When Parliament approves the amendments, they are then sent to the king who knows what he should do and what he need not do as according to the constitution.

If Anwar is departing from the usual procedure, he needs to explain on what constitutional grounds he has made the decision. In the absence of a reason for such a decision, it appears as if he is deferring to the rulers and seeking their approval/input before sending the amendments to Parliament. If this is the correct procedure, he needs to back it according to the constitution on the advice of the Attorney-General (A-G).

The A-G’s advice should also come under the scrutiny of his peers to ascertain if he has interpreted the constitution correctly. If he hasn’t, then he should be removed and replaced with an A-G who has a better and fuller grasp of the constitution.

The people have a right to know if the prime minister is making decisions according to the constitution and if he is getting the correct advice on an important issue such as referring government matters to the rulers first when the latter are not supposed to interfere with government matters.

Likewise with Anwar’s decision to include Members of Parliament facing court charges in the Cabinet. It will have a bearing on court decisions as clearly seen as Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has filed an application in the High Court to have his passport returned permanently.

The passport was previously surrendered to the court as an additional bail condition after he was charged with 47 charges of corruption, criminal breach of trust and money laundering involving Akalbudi Foundation funds. Zahid’s reason is to carry out his duties as the DPM.

Whether the court will reverse its decision is yet to be seen but it puts the court in an awkward position and begs the question as to whether Anwar’s decision places added pressure on the court to revisit its decision. Shouldn’t a prime minister’s responsibility include refraining from adding pressure on the courts?

Anwar may have other reasons for making the decisions he is making which the people don’t need to know. The people only need to know if he is acting according to the constitution and the accepted conventions of parliamentary democracy. That remains invisible, especially in the above decisions.

Sabahans, vote for your constitutional rights

Uncategorized, , ,

I seriously hope that Sabahans can see through the stilted statements that the Prihatin Nasional (PN) government and its coalition partners have been making of late. PAS claims it was the kingmaker in installing the PN government. Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin says Sabahans need strong state-federal ties. Don’t believe them!

PAS president Hadi Awang claimed that his party was the kingmaker in installing the  PN government and that it was done according to Islamic principles. Speaking at the PAS Youth general assembly in Kota Bharu last weekend, he said that PN was not a backdoor government although “we may have differing views”. That precisely is the issue

PAS helped to install an unelected prime minister and government, and a minority government at that, and he claims all these were done according to the constitution. But were they? In addition, PAS supports a government which dismissed the rightfully elected Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat and appointed a new one without an election. PAS supports a government which accommodates parties with crooks, bigots and desperate jobless politicians all in the name of Islamic principles.

For PAS, the above are consistent with the constitution. If they are, what guarantee do Malaysians have that their constitutional rights will not be misconstrued and tilted in favour of PAS’s notions as has happened?

That is the risk Malaysians should not take and why Sabahans must not vote for any candidate associated with PN or its allies or friends at the national or state level. The PN government can not be trusted to honour and uphold the constitution. If PAS can offer a justification for PN to stay in power even if it contravenes the standard understanding of the constitution as according to constitutional experts, PN will go along with it. PAS, meanwhile, continues to influence the government.

But, what will become of our constitutional rights? They will be sacrificed. That is the reason why Sabahans must not vote for PN parties, partners, allies and friends.

Muhyiddin has said a strong state-federal relationship is needed for Sabah. That may be true if PN remains in government. The Sabah and Sarawak elections can determine if PN will remain in power and that is why this Sabah elections are so important.

If Sabah votes overwhelmingly for Warisan Plus comprising Warisan Sabah (Warisan), Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), DAP, United Progressive Kinabalu Organisation (Upko) and Amanah, they will be sending the strongest message they can to PN that they will vote similarly in a parliamentary election.

Most of Sabah MPs are with Warisan Plus except for a few Umno and Bersatu MPs and Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) president Maximus Onglikli. If only two MPs switch camps, it is enough to bring about the fall of PN’s one-MP majority! That is what PN is afraid of and why it is making all sorts of encouraging statements about Sabah.

Don’t be fooled by the PN. In this state elections, DON’T vote for any party associated with PN. Their strategy is to go it independently and see who they can join forces with to form a coalition with a majority later. To preempt it, Sabahans should vote overwhelmingly for Warisan, PKR, DAP, Upko and Amanah.

Although PBS is a Sabahan party distancing itself from PN parties, don’t vote for it, unless PBS openly declares it is leaving the PN at the federal and state levels and becomes an independent or joins Warisan Plus.

The PN parties are Sabah Bersatu, Parti Solidariti Tanah Airku (STAR) and Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP). Parti Cinta Sabah is a party to watch. It is not allied with PN but its party president Anifah Aman is the brother of former chief minister and Umno politician Musa Aman and members of their large family are contesting various seats. They could easily forge a majority alliance should they win a number of seats.

A vote for Warisan Plus parties is a vote for the restoration of constitutional democracy in Malaysia which is the system of government we practise.

If Sabahans vote for the parties which best practise adherence to the constitution, they will be voting to protect their constitutional rights. It’s an indication they will do the same in the parliamentary elections, and, surely their fervour will spread to Sarawak, and GPS would have to make a choice whether to leave the PN or not. In other words, Sabah and Sarawak voters will determine if PN will stay in government or fall.

NEXT WEEK: Vote on behalf of all Malaysians

 

 

PM of just a 100?

Uncategorized, ,

Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin has done it again — abandoned the requirements of the constitution and interpreted the Dewan Rakyat session in a logic only he understands!

According to media reports, he sent a note to the Dewan Rakyat Speaker saying that he is the “ketua majlis” (head of the council) and in that capacity said only the Agong’s address will be heard on the first session of Parliament under his leadership on May 18 because of Covid-19. In other words, there will be no debates and other matters that are followed according to the Standing Orders when a Dewan Rakyat session is convened.

“Head of council”? Where in the Federal Constitution does it say that a PM is a “ketua majlis”? The Dewan Rakyat is not a council and has no head except for the Speaker. But the PM is now ‘ketua majlis”?! Covid-19 is well under control in Malaysia and is an excuse rather than a legitimate reason.

Who’s advising the PM on constitutional matters? The Prihatin Nasional (PN) government by every day is sounding more and more like Umno under Najib Razak and Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.

Is the PM aware that he will be embarrassing the Agong by inviting him to an improper session of his so-called council, which constitutionally isn’t a Dewan Rakyat session, and, therefore, can be challenged in court? He is willing to do this?

I guess it shouldn’t surprise anyone that he is resorting to non-constitutional means to hang on to power, Umno style. It’s apparent that the only reason why he is doing this is to protect his 70-member Cabinet and a few others who put him in power, all of whom don’t add up to even a 100. He is willing to sacrifice or compromise the democratic rights of more than 32 million people to protect about 100 people.

Muhyiddin is prime minister to these 100 but he is not prime minister to the rest. We didn’t elect him and he knows he doesn’t have a leg to stand on if he were to follow the constitution. Hence all these politicking and unconstitutional ways of doing things.

Look at the Malacca state assembly. Did they follow the standing orders when the PN assemblymen convened a state assembly without the opposition to elect their own Speaker? Now, in Kedah, the PN assemblymen want to remove Mukhriz Mahathir as Menteri Besar (state chief minister). Well, just call for a vote of no confidence in the state assembly. That’s the constitutional way of conducting state assembly business. There’s no need for statutory declarations and rushing to see the Sultan. Follow the constitution and call for a vote of no confidence. If PN wins it, Mukhriz will be ousted.

So, why don’t they do it? They are afraid they will lose? If you don’t have the confidence of the majority in the assembly, why seek to topple the current government? PN politicians are so greedy for power?

The PN government is an illegitimate government. Therefore, whatever it does will be illegitimate and can be challenged in court until it wins a vote of no confidence. That’s common sense. Anyone can see that. So, if they want to continue with their illegitimate business, it is their choice.

I’m glad that the Opposition MPs are not taking the open, brazen and shameless flouting of the constitution lying down. Mukhriz is insisting that Kedah state assemblymen follow the standing orders. MPs are speaking up about the absurdity of a one-day Dewan Rakyat sitting where there will be no debate. A lawyer has said that the validity of the one-day May 18 Dewan Rakyat sitting without debates can be challenged in court. Two other lawyers have filed a legal action to declare that the May 18 session is unconstitutional.

More people need to speak up against the unconstitutional conduct of the PN government which is tantamount to lawlessness. We should not condone any public official acting without regard to the rule of law.