BR1M may not be 'bribery', but is unlawful

Mat Zain Ibrahim

Modified 9 Apr 2013, 2:30 pm

I refer to your report , ‘Giving out BR1M not bribery, says AG’.

In explaining the mechanism of a caretaker government in an interview with Bernama , attorney-general (AG) Abdul Gani Patail was quoted as saying: “This was in line with Article 40 of the federal constitution which provides that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall act in accordance with advice of the cabinet of ministers or under the authority of the cabinet.

“We also look at the case of Abdul Ghani Ali v Public Prosecutor (2001) where the Federal Court ruled that the word ‘shall’ in Article 43(1) of the federal constitution shows that the cabinet must exist at all times to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong though Parliament has been dissolved.

“There must be a government continuously, cannot be a gap. This is the court’s decision. On this basis, there must be a government at all times, hence the establishment of a caretaker government.” (emphasis is mine)

Share this story

By posting a comment, you agree to our Terms & Conditions as stipulated in full here


Foul language, profanity, vulgarity, slanderous, personal attack, threatening, sexually-orientated comments or the use of any method of communication that may violate any law or create needless unpleasantness will not be tolerated. Antisocial behaviour such as "spamming" and "trolling" will be suspended. Violators run the risk of also being blocked permanently.


Please use the report feature that is available below each comment to flag offending comments for our moderators to take action. Do not take matters in your own hands to avoid unpleasant and unnecessary exchanges that may result in your own suspension or ban.