Tag Archives: Zahid

PM can’t wash his hands of Zahid’s DNAA

Uncategorized, , ,

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim can not disclaim responsibility for deputy prime minister and Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s dismissal not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) because it was Anwar himself who extended Attorney-General (AG) Idrus Harun’s tenure by six months.

Two months after Anwar became prime minister, Idrus’ contract expired. In the year before his contract expired Idrus became a controversial AG because many Umno leaders who were charged in court by the previous AG, Tommy Thomas, were acquitted or had their cases withdrawn on the orders of the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) or were given a DNAA.

Anwar was fully aware of Idrus’ record and described the latter’s performance as “satisfactory” when he was asked why he had extended Idrus’ contract by another six months. In other words, Anwar was fully aware of the implications of his decision and Idrus delivered — up to expectations.

This firestorm of protest should have happened when Idrus’s contract was extended not now when the damage is done and it is too late.

A nagging question is why an AG considered letters of representation by the defence counsels. Shouldn’t the AGC get its facts and evidence from its own prosecution teams and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC)?

New AG Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh, however, emphasised that the AGC has a duty to give due consideration to letters of representation by accused persons, in conjunction with feedback from investigating authorities.

If so, then, perhaps, Idrus should have done what Terrirudin did yesterday by stopping court proceedings until the prosecution team could work on the new information and come up with a solid case.

Since a precedent has now been set, would it then follow that any accused person feeling unfairly charged can send letters of representation to the AG to review the case? This is absurd. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Hopefully, Terrirudin will draw out a clear protocol with regard to letters of representation so that defence counsels do not abuse this avenue.

Withdrawing the case or seeking a DNAA for particularly Umno politicians charged by Thomas now casts doubts on whether there was a basis for these charges. Thomas could have recognized criminal activity by the errant politicians and may have had the confidence, insight and ability to prove it which some others like Idrus might not have, in which case, a second professional opinion might have been needed.

A more important question is whether the escape of conviction by Umno politicians facing criminal charges in court during Idrus’ tenure as AG is according to the mandate of the people.

Thomas had the support of former second-time prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who got the mandate of the people to take corrupt politicians to court.

Idrus got the support of former prime minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob and current PM Anwar both of whom did not get the mandate of the people to spare Umno leaders facing criminal charges in court but who, nevertheless, used their positions to create advantageous situations for Umno such as keeping someone like Idrus as AG and including that party in the unity government.

Was this what the people wanted when they voted for Anwar in the last general election last November? Was Anwar mandated by the people to let Umno politicians who faced corruption charges go free? If not, why is this happening? If not the people’s, whose mandate is Anwar executing? That is the important question to address.

Anwar likes to present a public face of the innocent victim who has become the prime minister. In defending Idrus against the criticisms over Zahid’s DNAA, he said, ” I fault the backlash to the ‘system’ inherited over the last few decades, where politicians are seen as ‘greedy, cruel’ beings who victimised the people … I underwent the process. Now that I’m the prime minister, I’m not willing to use it against anyone else.”

Yet, he sent former prime minister and Bersatu president Muhyiddin Yassin and other opposition members to court on corruption charges. Yet, under his leadership Umno leaders facing court charges escaped conviction. How is he not doing the same things he accuses previous prime ministers of? His actions speak louder than his words.

Lest people forget, it must be mentioned here that in 1998 when Anwar was sacked from the government as deputy prime minister and as Umno deputy president, it wasn’t because he went against then-prime minister Mahathir. That is what he wants everyone to believe: that Mahathir was a dictator and Anwar was a threat to the former who removed him from office.

There may be some truth in that. If Anwar thought that Mahathir needed to be toppled and replaced, that is a legitimate reason. But, did he do it democratically? If he felt that he deserved to replace Mahathir as PM, why didn’t he go to the ground, rallied for grassroots support and stood for election against Mahathir in Umno? He didn’t do that.

Instead, he formed a pact with the then-opposition party, the DAP (that explains why PKR and DAP are thick as thieves!) and it is said that he got the help of the United States as well and was scheming behind Mahathir’s back to topple him. Mahathir heard about it and preempted it by sacking him from the government and the party.

Exposed, Anwar took to the streets, attracting thousands and destabilised peace and order. Again, Mahathir acted decisively and charged him with sodomy cases which he lost and went to jail. There was nothing politically charged about these moves; the incumbent PM dealt with a revolting former deputy prime minister who apparently had the backing of the US and who was acting in a way that threatened the peace and order of that time.

If Anwar had acted democratically and stood for elections and won, he would have become PM two decades ago. If he had lost the elections, he should have just stayed quiet like former deputy prime minister Musa Hitam and Umno supreme council member Tengku Razaleigh who had also contested against Mahathir and lost.

But Anwar did not follow the democratic route at that time and created a ruckus wherever he went and, frankly, simply got what he asked for. So, he has no reason to play the victim card; he is just using it to beg for sympathy and understanding and make Mahathir look like the villain.

Anwar then formed a political party but the premiership eluded him until the 15th general election in November last year when he became PM on the direction of the king and an undemocratic Memorandum of Understanding — without the mandate of the people. Since then he has been doing everything he can to stay in power, and, somehow Umno features significantly in his agenda even though the Malay voters are steadily abandoning Umno.

Anwar’s Pakatan Harapan (PH)-led unity government has 118 seats without the Umno-led Barisan Nasional’s (BN) 30 seats — enough to form a simple but stable majority government. With BN, Anwar has a two-thirds majority which is yet to be used to introduce meaningful new legislation.

Giving a two-thirds majority to a government without the mandate of the people is putting the people at risk of policies and changes that will affect them directly. The federal constitution can be changed but to benefit whom?

The current king’s term is coming to an end soon and if Anwar wants a king he can work in partnership with there may be a need to amend the constitution to remove the clause that restricts the constitutional monarch to act on the advice of the prime minister.

With a two-thirds majority, the Dewan Rakyat could remove the clause’ “… act on the advice of the prime minister …” thus giving the constitutional monarch more say in the affairs of government.

This is just an example and may not happen but it could and if it does that would be the end of parliamentary democracy and we may have a situation like in Johor when the Menteri Besar who got the mandate of the people was set aside by the Sultan who chose the Menteri Besar he wanted.

A government without the mandate of the people may act not necessarily for the benefit of the people. Another example is the RM95 billion New Industrial Master Plan launched last week to transform the industrial sector by 2030. Its approach is expected to be more liberal and that might affect the equity requirements nurtured over the years to distribute wealth equitably among the people.

The NIMP may be an attempt to attract foreign investment but if it sacrifices equity requirements that might not be the best policy in the interests of the people.

Political parties in a government without the mandate of the people need to think twice about who or what they are enabling and act proactively. They should not wait until the unthinkable happens because it would be too late then to correct the situation.

Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) and Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS) need to realise that what is happening in Peninsular Malaysia could happen in Sabah and Sarawak as well and they should not be a party to an undemocratic precedent.

Look how Zahid got off the hook, and there was nothing anybody could do about it.

Normalising corruption, yes, no?

Uncategorized, , ,

If a prime minister will not censure his deputy for telling recipients of government allocations to vote for his and the prime minister’s coalitions, what are the people to conclude except that it is what Muda president Syed Saddiq Abdul Rahman says it is: normalising corruption.

What was Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s response to criticisms of Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi who — after giving an allocation of RM250,000 to the Terengganu Youth Council and RM200,000 to motorcycle teams throughout Terengganu — told the recipients there would be more aid if they voted for the blue (Barisan Nasional (BN)) and red (Pakatan Harapan (PH) wave?

He said it was not related to the state elections. Anwar is right, the allocations by itself may be unrelated to the state elections but he chose to ignore the fact that Zahid actually said “vote for the blue and red wave” after giving the allocations. Isn’t that a blatant and brazen, and very public invitation to vote for his side immediately after giving aid?

Zahid uttered the words but the prime minister failed to address it and by omitting this fact that is on public record, he dismissed the issue as a non-issue. By skewing the truth by omission, Anwar, has justified keeping an ally in government.

To make matters worse Anwar as PKR president has nominated a convict to stand for election in the state seat of Permatang in Selangor. Mohd Yahya Mat Sahri who was former Selangor menteri besar Khalid Ibrahim’s special officer, was jailed for two years in 2016 for cheating a businessman over a RM50,000 donation to sponsor an event.

Doesn’t PKR know what the federal constitution says about convicted politicians?

Article 48(1)(e) provides: 48(1) Subject to the provisions of this Article, a person is disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament if –

(e) he has been convicted of an offence by a court of law in the federation… and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or to a fine of not less than two thousand ringgit and has not received a free pardon; or

(3) The disqualification of a person under paragraph….(e) may be removed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong…”.

Yahya was jailed for two years. How could he be nominated to stand for election? It can be argued that Article 48(1) is relevant only to either House of Parliament and does not apply to the state elections.

That’s a convenient cop-out, isn’t it? Shouldn’t the same principle of proper conduct acceptable in Parliament be acceptable for state politicians as well? What logic is it that the standard of conduct for parliamentarians does not apply to assemblypersons?

Surely PKR has qualified non-convicts to stand for election? They can’t be so desperate that they have no choice but to nominate a convict?

In addition, Lim Guan Eng, chairman of DAP, which is a partner in Anwar’s PH-BN unity government, and who is facing an ongoing corruption case in court, is standing for election in the state seat of Air Puteh in Penang.

Lim with Anwar, Zahid and Syed Saddiq, who are all facing ongoing court cases, stood for election in GE15 and won. They shouldn’t have, but they did and we can dismiss it as a first offence of a lapse in judgement. But, to repeat a mistake is no longer an error in judgement but a demonstration of a simply very low common denominator of public conduct totally inconsistent with the standard of integrity advocated by Anwar’s madani government in which they represent.

What else is mind-boggling is that the Election Commission accepted the nomination papers of these candidates! In Air Putih and Permatang, the people should vote to reject these candidates and make it clear to politicians that they will not tolerate compromised candidates.

It is a great relief that Syed Saddiq did not offer himself for a state seat! Hopefully, his corruption case will be disposed of well before the next general election so that he can stand for election confidently on a clean slate.

All these politicians, including all others facing court charges should not stand for public office until their cases are disposed of. These cases should be expedited so that the issues are resolved and the public is not left wondering whatever happened to them.

As to whether these court cases — including the new case taken against Anwar after he received a royal pardon for his previous sodomy case — will ever see the light of day under Anwar’s madani government is another omission that has left the public in the dark and which the prime minister makes no effort to address.

If Anwar keeps omitting pertinent facts regarding issues of public significance, he will be nurturing a culture that promotes a lack of transparency in government.

The PJD link is a case in point. Residents affected by the PJD link project took the Selangor government to court to get it to release the project documents which the state government claimed came under the Official Secrets Act.

After the Selangor Assembly was dissolved to pave the way for state elections, caretaker menteri besar Amirudin Shari cancelled the project. Then, he said the project could be revived if certain requirements are met.

The residents have given him a one-week notice to state the requirements, otherwise, they intend to continue with their lawsuit to get access to the documents.

Why is a state government not releasing information that the residents want to know about a project that would disrupt their life? It is the same lack of transparency the federal government exhibits in some of its decisions.

If all this isn’t normalising corruption and encouraging a lack of transparency, what then is it?

In the state elections on Aug 12, the people have a choice to maintain the status quo or elect leaders who will hold themselves to the highest standard of public conduct and honour the trust of the people to uphold their interests. So, think before voting so that we don’t regret after, because it may be too late then.

Umno’s requests – the implications

Uncategorized, , ,

Umno has sent a request to the king for a royal pardon for former prime minister Najib Razak who is the party advisor. Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has also sent a letter of representation to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to drop the 47 charges of criminal breach of trust, corruption and money laundering involving Yayasan Akalbudi (YAB) that were brought against him.

Clearly, Zahid and Najib want to escape conviction but did they think through the decisions and implications or frantically made decisions based on a dissenting judgement in the review of Najib’s SRC case which had found him guilty?

Perhaps, my layperson’s mind can’t grasp the legal aspects of Zahid’s latest two moves. But, I find the audacity of the requests unbelievable. Firstly, the application was sent to the king. What now will the king do? Pass the application to the pardon’s board for consideration? By sending the application directly to the king, Umno has now made the king the secretary of the pardon’s board who passes it to the board!

Secondly, can the political party of a convicted politician send a request on behalf of the said politician? According to Regulation 113 of the Prison Regulations 2000, a petition can only be filed by the convicted, their family or a lawyer appointed by them, and the Prisons Department. But Umno has bypassed the standard procedure and sent the request directly to the king and in doing so does it realise it has put both the king and the government in a spot?

Since the application came to the king from outside of the government, the king now has to consider whether he acts as the king or the king who is the chairman of the pardon’s board. If he acts solely as the king, he is free to pardon anyone but will it be recognized by the government?

For it to be recognized by the government, the application must go through the government and be approved by the pardon’s board in a sitting with the king as the chairman.

If the king issues a pardon in his capacity as the king, it would put the government in a spot as firstly it must be established that the king has the constitutional authority to issue a pardon without the rest of the pardon’s board and which the government must recognize.

If the king has no such constitutional authority and he issues a pardon, then Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim will now have to make a stand as to what is constitutional and advise the king accordingly.

Whether he will do that or not and go along with whatever interpretation the king follows in the way he did when the king instructed the political parties to form a unity government with Anwar as prime minister is left to be seen, which will be seen as another constitutional breach!

It is to avoid such chaotic governing processes that a pardon’s board was set up with the king as chairman so that applications are brought through the government and once approved according to the set criteria the government acts to validate the decision.

It is the same with Zahid’s letter to the AGC requesting that his criminal charges be dropped. If he has the right to send such a letter, then every other person charged in court has the right to make such a request! A precedent has been set and now it can be expected that others will do the same.

Was Zahid and those who advised him fully aware of the implications of the above two requests? I like to give them the benefit of the doubt and think that they were but, I suspect, they don’t care — as long as there is a feeble even if baseless hope they could go free, they would seize it irrespective of whether they were acting responsibly. They don’t care if they were setting a precedent and, in the process, undermining the finality of judges’ decisions.

Would Zahid, who is the deputy prime minister, have been so bold to sidestep the correct procedures and practices of good governance if he and his party weren’t part of the ruling government? Or, was he emboldened precisely because he is in government?

These are the brazen acts of desperate politicians who have been given access to power by being included in the Cabinet and who use their power to act for selfish gain.

As the prime minister, Anwar has not reined in his junior coalition partner who has put unnecessary stress on the government, the constitutional monarchy, the judiciary and the pardon’s board. For that, he must be held responsible.

The past two governments fell due to Umno’s manipulations. The same might happen to Anwar’s unity government.

His position — despite the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) he signed with parties in his coalition — is not guaranteed. The MoU was signed with parties, not individual MPs.

If MPs get tired of Umno’s shenanigans and Anwar’s accommodative silence, they may revolt. Their parties can simply claim they couldn’t do anything about it because the MPs acted on behalf of their constituents. If the MPs revolt, it may be the end of the unity government.

Anwar has to rethink the leeway he has given Umno — if he wants to save the unity government.

Candidates who should sit out GE15

Uncategorized, , ,

For the first time in Malaysian history, candidates who are facing court charges have been selected for election in GE15. They are Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi for the Bagan Datok seat, Pakatan Harapan chairman and PKR president Anwar Ibrahim for Tambun, DAP chairman Lim Guan Eng for Bagan, Muda president Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman for Muar and Sungai Besar Umno division chief Jamal Yunos for Sungai Besar. Adding to the list are Zahid’s court cluster cohorts in Umno.

Technically, they can claim that they have not yet been found guilty and therefore are innocent. However, Anwar was found guilty of a previous sodomy charge although pardoned. But, he still faces another sodomy charge that is yet to be disposed of. Hence, the question has to be raised as to why he is standing for election.

His case is no doubt not a criminal case like Lim’s, Zahid’s and his court cluster’s and Syed Saddiq’s, but it is still a case that tarnishes his moral standing and until he is cleared in court, Anwar should not stand for election.

Anwar can argue that he was pardoned when PH was in government but that was before the new sodomy case was initiated. He may also argue that if Zahid can stand for election so can he. Well, Umno politicians are unscrupulous and will do anything to gain power. Is Anwar like them?

Jamal, unlike Umno’s court cluster, is in the middle of bankruptcy proceedings initiated by former Seputeh MP Teresa Kok who said in a news report today that he is likely to be declared bankrupt. He has stated that as long as he has yet to receive a bankruptcy order from the courts he is qualified to run in the polls.

Zahid and his court cluster, Lim and Syed Saddiq, who are facing criminal charges in court, should also sit out this general election until they are cleared by the courts.

Should all these candidates facing court cases be found guilty or declared a bankrupt, they would have to step down and by-elections would have to be called, which is a waste of taxpayers’ money. Their political futures too would be in question.

Zahid and his court cluster and Jamal, of course, can’t be expected to conduct themselves in any better way other than the way they have conducted themselves. But opposition candidates?

It is extremely disappointing that these opposition politicians who have always held the high moral ground with regard to jailed former prime minister Najib Razak’s financial muddling, have failed to apply the same standards for themselves.

Understandably, Anwar and Lim who are at the end of their political careers can go for broke. Make it or break it. But Syed Saddiq, 29, should not jeopardize his political career by standing for election while his criminal case is ongoing. It will come back to sully his chances for a controversy-free political future.

Nobody expects Zahid, the court cluster or Jamal to set the example and pull out from the elections, being from a corrupt party, but more is expected of Anwar, Lim and Syed Saddiq unless, of course, their supporters have lowered their expectations quite drastically in favour of political expediency!

Anwar and Lim as veterans should set the example and not stand for election so that potential young, future leaders such as Syed Saddiq follow suit and step aside in order to keep their reputations intact.

The participation of the elder two in GE15 is as baffling as the silence they have maintained over the recent reports of alleged negotiations taking place between PH and Umno. The leaders of all the PH partners have noticeably not said a word on the issue.

Their silence can only mean guilt or a compromise to enable them to form a government with Umno. It is an option PH may be keeping open and one that must be made public.

Any kind of cooperation with Umno must be revealed to the voting public because, unlike all the other parties and coalitions, Umno is toxic and any alliance with it will only continue the political instability the country has been experiencing since the Sheraton Moves.

PH should not risk the political stability of the country in order to form a government with Umno with Anwar as prime minister.

Anwar recently appealed to fence-sitters to give PH a solid majority in GE15. He needs to understand that these fence-sitters are urbanites in the traditional opposition strongholds who gave their votes to PH to boot out Umno from the government in 2018. To expect them to support PH to bring Umno back into the government is to consider them fools. If, somehow, they are fooled to give their support, and after the elections find they have been played, PH can expect a defeat at their hands in subsequent elections just as they were punished in the Malacca and Johor state elections.

Show your courage, call for a confidence vote now

Uncategorized, , , ,

For the first time since he seized power in February last year, Perikatan Nasional (PN) coalition leader Muhyiddin Yassin made the correct constitutional decision to face a no-confidence vote in Parliament. Even so, he fumbled and undermined his own decision by delaying the vote by a month.

The legitimacy of the government is of urgent national importance. Any prime minister or MP worth his/her salt would immediately call for a vote in the Dewan Rakyat to test his/her support, especially when a large partner in the incumbent coalition claims that more than 11 MPs in its party, namely Umno in this case, have withdrawn their support for Muhyiddin.

PN is said to have a maximum of 110 votes in its favour in the Dewan Rakyat. Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi submitted a list of 11 names of those who no longer support Muhyiddin to the Agong, of which eight names are confirmed. So, how can Muhyiddin claim he has a majority?

At this point whatever numbers Zahid or Muhyiddin claims to have are just that — claims. Until these claims are tested in the Dewan Rakyat, they remain unproven and provides no constitutional basis for any party or coalition to claim the right to form a government. So, if Muhyiddin’s PN does not have a majority and he refuses now to prove his claim that he has, what right does he have to remain in government?

He must resign or prove his majority now. He can’t wait. The playing field is level now. Waiting for a month is just a delay tactic to use his incumbency to his advantage and that is giving him unfair advantage. It must not be allowed.

Unfortunately, a precedent has been set — by himself — when in last February he got himself and his cohorts sworn in to form the government although his majority was in question. He failed to prove his majority by facing a no-confidence vote in Parliament.

He’s doing the same thing again. Remaining in government without constitutional authority.

Muhyiddin needs to understand that he came to power on the graces of the Agong — not by the constitutional authority vested on the Dewan Rakyat. Since he is using the authority of the Agong to govern, he is obligated to listen to what the Agong asks. He can not invoke his constitutional authority now when he never got it from the Dewan Rakyat until December last year when the Budget was passed giving him legitimacy.

Now his legitimacy is in question again because his majority is in question. The Agong has wisely advised that a special parliamentary session be called to discuss the emergency ordinances. Muhyiddin fails to heed the Agong and holds a Q & A session in the Dewan Rakyat with no mention of the emergency ordinances except to announce that they have been revoked. Then he postpones the last day of the meeting.

According to the news portal, Sarawak Report, the Agong advised Muhyiddin to resign three times in their last pre-Cabinet meeting but the latter said he will face a no-confidence vote to prove his majority. We don’t know if it was agreed that the no-confidence vote will be in September or that it was understood that it would be held sooner.

The postponed special parliamentary session can be easily recalled for a vote of confidence in a matter of days. Why is Muhyiddin delaying? If he has learnt from his mistake and want to correct it by following the constitution, he must call for a Dewan Rakyat sitting immediately not resort to delaying tactics to gain an advantage.

Does he not know that delaying proving a ruling coalition’s majority, and subsequently its right to govern, will only create more political and economic uncertainties as it allows for intense “frog jumping” and keeps the economy from moving forward?

The FBM KLCI remains jittery and in the doldrums unable to rise up despite Muhyiddin’s public statements. Covid 19 deaths keep breaking daily records, yet Muhyiddin asks if a change of government is good for the nation and if it will affect the National Recovery Plan (NRP).

Anyone looking at the statistics will say, a change of government is the best option. A change of administration will only cause some problems with the national vaccination programme but with good leadership that can be overcome quickly. As for the NRP, what of it? We have not seen any evidence of it. No setback there and no other aspect of government will be affected because the government is running rudderless. Instead, I suspect, there will be all-around relief!

Besides, former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s National Recovery Council under his strong and experienced leadership will do a much better job than what we are seeing now and it will draw able people from across the board.

An immediate no-confidence vote is essential for political stability and for the PN to justify its right to remain in government. If PN truly has a majority as it claims, why doesn’t it prove it with a no-confidence vote? Since February last year, PN has been claiming it has a majority but refuses to prove it. Instead, it resorted to luring MPs over and indebting them to Muhyiddin.

A no-confidence vote in the Dewan Rakyat, on the other hand, will free MPs to vote according to their conscience despite all the allurements. That will be the true test of whether Muhyiddin has the support he claims he has. The more important question is whether he has the courage to face the truth about the alleged support for him and the legitimacy of his coalition.

What a mess! But, there’s a way out

Uncategorized, , , ,

In a statement today, Umno vice-president Mohamed Khaled Nordin said that it was better for Umno to quit the Perikatan Nasional (PN) coalition and to work towards forming an interim government. Yesterday, it was reported that former prime minister and Umno adviser Najib Razak said that Umno supports the PN coalition but not PN leader Muhyiddin Yassin.

Their statements imply that Umno is still with the PN-lead coalition. That seems to have been assumed but it is an incorrect position. Umno is NOT a member of the PN. PN members are Bersatu — Muhyiddin’s minority party that leads the coalition — and PAS. All the other parties in the PN-led coalition such as Gabungan Parti Sarawak, Parti Bersatu Sabah, STAR, MIC and MCA and Umno are partners with the PN in the PN-led coalition.

The difference is significant. A member party of a coalition can withdraw its support for the incumbent PM yet not leave the coalition unless it chooses to. That party remains in the coalition and at its top-level meeting expresses its withdrawal of support for the incumbent PM and negotiates for a replacement. The constitution of the coalition must state the rules and guidelines for such a possibility.

A partner in a coalition, on the other hand, does not come under the rules of the coalition for members. It’s a partner — not a member. If a party that is a partner in a coalition withdraws support for the incumbent PM, it removes itself from that coalition. A partner in a coalition can not say it is withdrawing support for the incumbent PM but allows its members to remain in the coalition in support of the PM. That doesn’t make sense. It is an absurd position.

When a party that is a partner in a coalition withdraws its support for the incumbent PM it is equivalent to withdrawing support for the government the PM leads. That party automatically is out of the coalition. So, whether you say you no longer support the PM or the government it leads, it is the same.

On July 8, Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi announced that Umno was withdrawing its support for Muhyiddin and called on the latter to resign, which means the Cabinet would resign, which means the PN-led government would fall. That, in effect, means withdrawing its support for the PN-led government, which means the PN-led government fell on July 8.

The PN-led government, however, continued in government as if Umno’s withdrawal meant nothing at all, since, after all, Attorney General Idrus Harun said it was “not clear” if PN had lost its majority as a majority is not determined by a party statement.

Does Idrus know how coalition politics work? How else can a party that is a partner in a coalition express its withdrawal of support if not by a statement? If the government is doubtful, then it should call for a no-confidence vote in the Dewan Rakyat. It doesn’t do that but continues as if the largest partner in its coalition didn’t resign.

This doesn’t make sense. It just isn’t done, unless maybe in a banana republic!

It doesn’t make it any easier that the nine Umno MPs in the PN Cabinet openly defied their president to show that they support Muhyiddin. They are not PN members. It’s puzzling why Zahid doesn’t discipline them.

Zahid and the nine Umno MPs must realise that they can take over the leadership of the PN-led government only if the PN and all partners in the coalition agree to it. Zahid will fail because he has pulled his party Umno out of the PN-led coalition. The nine MPs will also fail because they can’t represent their party which is no longer in the same coalition; they can only represent themselves. It’s doubtful either will get majority support.

The fact is that Umno has left the PN-led coalition. That means Muhyiddin has lost its majority — since July 8. It remains in government illegitimately and revoking the emergency ordinances without announcing it and conducting a Dewan Rakyat session where MPs are powerless to debate and vote on annulling or accepting the emergency ordinances are a cowardly cover-up to not prove its majority.

The Agong has publicly rebuked the PN-led government for not keeping to the word given to him about conducting a Dewan Rakyat session to debate and vote on the emergency ordinances. He has declared that he has not assented to the revocation of the emergency ordinances.

Muhyiddin said he did advise the Agong about the revocation through a letter but in defence of himself against the Agong’s public rebuke, he invoked Article 40 (1) of the federal constitution which states that the Agong acts on the advice of the prime minister.

But wasn’t the special Dewan Rakyat called specifically to debate and accept or annul the emergency ordinances? That was circumvented by the July 21 revocation of the ordinances.

So, now, Muhyiddin is not only without a majority and continuing in government despite it, but he has apparently antagonised the Agong, the very person who swore him and his cohorts into government.

By right, he should resign but it is doubtful that he would. The only solution to move forward is NOT an interim government. It will not have the support of the majority of the MPs and the chaotic politicking will continue thwarting attempts to control the covid 19 pandemic quickly and effectively. Besides, Muhyiddin will preempt it.

Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s proposal of a National Recovery Council is the solution and a chance for a way out and a reset. Hopefully, a majority of MPs will rally behind him and make a representation to the Agong that they would be supportive of that endeavour. Since we are still under emergency, the Agong can do it and save the day.