YOURSAY | 'The whole process presumes that all parties are acting in 'good faith'.'
Bluemountains: It is clear that Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin wants to revoke the emergency ordinances without having them tabled and debated in Parliament as indicated in his letter to the king on July 23.
Despite the letter, the king called de facto Law Minister Takiyuddin Hassan and attorney-general (AG) Idrus Harun on July 24 and ordered them to have the ordinances tabled and debated but this was not obeyed.
Muhyiddin and the AG met the king personally on July 27 to explain their reasons to have the ordinances revoked without being tabled and debated.
The three attempts - on July 23, 24 and 27 - clearly show that Muhyiddin refused to allow the ordinances to be tabled and debated in accordance with Article 150(3) of the Constitution.
The ordinances must be tabled and debated in Parliament because only Parliament has the power to revoke them, under Article 150(3).
Dr Raman Letchumanan: My gosh! The prime minister is challenging the king. The PM should know the king cannot engage with the cabinet in a tit-for-tat in public.
Now, coming to the main issue - that the king has to act on the advice of the cabinet. Even if I dispute how it is applied in this case, assume I agree with that.
The issue is even though the advice should be accepted by the king, nowhere is it stated in what form that advice should be taken.
Otherwise, it is tantamount to the king being treated like a peon to do whatever His Majesty is told without any argument; with due respect and my apologies for saying this, but this is just to make my point.
So, what is the role of the king in a constitutional monarchy? Absolutely nothing?
In fact, the king, having accepted the advice, was carrying out exactly what was stated in the Constitution.
The king, having noted that Parliament would be meeting on July 26, wanted the revocation of the emergency ordinances to be laid in the august House for a debate and decision.
He wanted the rakyat to have a say on this important matter through their MPs. So, what is so wrong to table the emergency ordinances in Parliament as provided for in the Constitution?
In fact, the intention of the cabinet to bypass Parliament is suspect. It seems the cabinet is afraid that a vote on the matter may indicate the level of confidence in the government, or the lack of it.
But why worry, when the government said it has the absolute majority? In any case, the government and the opposition, as well as the king, want the emergency ordinances revoked.
IndigoTrout2522: Now, PMO has made a statement that appears to contradict the Agong. It is claiming that Muhyiddin and Takiyuddin had followed the constitutional process correctly. It appears to imply that the royal institution is wrong.
So, who is telling the truth or who is right - the Agong or the PM?
Further, will Muhyiddin allow a vote of no-confidence in Parliament? If he has the majority as Deputy Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob claimed, he has nothing to worry and it will calm the situation.
Hang Babeuf: On the matter of the granting, the delaying, and the executive's automatic assuming of the giving of royal assent:
The whole process presumes that all parties are acting in "good faith". The PM, his Perikatan Nasional (PN) government, and their "de facto pseudo-legal factotum" clearly are not doing so.
And the Agong has made it clear that that is his and the rulers' view of the situation.
The Agong may withhold his consent in such circumstances to secure clarification of the matter. That is his constitutional role and duty - not as a "sovereign Malay monarch" but as the constitutional head of state, the personification of constitutionalism and the guardian-of-last-resort of its core principles.
OrangLama: That statement by the PMO is mind-boggling, to say the least. Is it insinuating that the official statement from the palace is erroneous? Seriously?
The above action brings to mind an age-old adage: "Out of the frying pan into the fire".
CH Y: The Federal Court has to decide the following constitutional matters:
1. Is there a reasonable time frame for the Agong to act upon the advice of the cabinet to proclaim or revoke an emergency and the ordinances therein or is the Agong to act upon a letter request by the cabinet on the date of the request, without further information and consultation?
2. In the event Parliament sits under Article 150(3) of the Constitution, can the House speaker construe the laying of the proclamation of emergency and ordinances as the physical presentation of the papers, without formal debate with motions from the floor to revoke or annul the same when the Agong assent to the revocation is still in the process of being obtained?
3. Whether the fundamental principle that legislative powers are vested in Parliament under Article 44 means that the revocation and annulment under Article 150(3) means a process where both Houses have to pass the motions and duly assented by the Agong as Parliament consists of the tripartite of both Houses and the Agong to confirm the validity of the proclamation and ordinances, or to revoke the same once the emergency is over, or to annul the same on the grounds it was wrongly enacted.
4. Arising from issue 3, that the powers of revocation and annulment must be exercised in both Houses of Parliament exclusively and not by the Agong solely, as then the Executive will be supreme and against the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution.
Forgotten Citizen: It looks like the PMO is challenging the palace. It’s lucky the AG is not Tommy Thomas, otherwise it will fall on his head being a non-Muslim/Malay.
So, what now for all those who insisted on a Muslim/Muslim majority government as even the Agong is not spared this time?
I hope this opens the eyes of the majority in this country.
The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. In the past year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.
These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.