Nazri: King must act on PM's advice

The Interpretation of the Federal Constitution

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:03:36 +0100

In defining art 43(5) of the Federal Constitution, in relation to the appointment and revocation of Cabinet Ministers, the phrase "advice of the Prime Minister" is interpreted in the case of: Dato’ Sri Anwar bin Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor [2000] 2 MLJ 486. Lamin PCA (as he then was) held: "[*432] ... This means that the Prime Minister may revoke his appointment at any time. Of course formality demands that the revocation of his appointment shall be acted upon by the Yang di Pertuan Agong ‘on the advice of the Prime Minister’. The Yang di Pertuan Agong must act on such advice." In the case of Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v Perdana Menteri Malaysia & Anor[2007] 4 MLJ 422, I believe the Honorable Raus Sharif JCA held that: "Under the Federal Constitution, the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong is a constitutional monarch who acts on ministerial advice and not on his own initiative. (para 21)". Rightly or wrongly, I believe this is the judicial interpretation. Tan Chun Ming - Tan Chun Ming

TALENT AND STUPIDITY

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:04:55 +0100

Fellow lawyers Have you guys ever noticed how much talent and effort have gone into making something stupid? Can we put that in the Malaysian Guinness Book of Records? And, if it can be done, just add the rider that normally Malaysians need very little talent to create ingenuity. The abnormal Malaysians need a concentration of talent to do something stupid. Stephen Tan Ban Cheng - Stephen Tan Ban Cheng

Please correct me if I am wrong...

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:29:50 +0100

Dear Shanmuga, Thanks for your comments, what I tried to say is this, in respect of the CJ's appointment, although the YDPA has to act on the PM's advice, his Royal Highness also has to consult the Conference, therefore the PM's advice is not binding as it still has to be qualified by the consultation with the Conference. I must correct myself by saying the Conference has the last say, it should be the PM's advice is not final to the YDPA. Further, Art 40 talks about the YDPA has to act on the advice of the Cabinet, not PM alone. Shim Wai Loon - Shim Wai Loon

Find you really hillarious man

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:59:48 +0100

Dear Mr Minister, Thank you for the constant jokes. Find you really hillarious man. Maybe you can be the malaysian version of David Letterman. You'd be perfect I tell you. Verbal diaorhea to you comes naturally. Seriously you have the talent man. Time to put it to good use and let your performance take on the global audience. Better yet we should have chosen you as our first astronaut. Should have blasted you off to space never to return. Dare I dream? Visvanathan Murugiah - Visvanathan Murugiah

about the King

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:54:12 +0100

I'm no expert on the Malaysian constitution, but I do now that Dr. Mahathir, when he was PM, changed it more than 2 dozen times (or thereabouts). Shows you how much respect he accorded it. But about our current King, the Sultan of Terengganu, I wonder why there was no publicity in the local media about a 1-hr documentary on the preparations for his installation which was shown on one of the documentary networks on satellite TV (Astro-lah). It showed him to be educated, eloquent, and very human. I can only surmise that our government was afraid that the rakyat would actually start to pay more respect to our royalty rather than to our Cabinet Ministers! The argument against absolute monarchy is that it is not democratic. But what is so truly democratic about how our country is being run today anyway? The voting age is 21, not 18. Different constituencies vary GREATLY in sizes. The judiciary is no longer respected. Neither are the police. Parliamentary proceedings are not televised to the public, not even delayed telecasts. We don't get to vote for our PM. Ministers serve for decades. For me, I would rather have a good caring communist or absolute monarchic rule, rather than a bad so-called "democratic" Parliament. Alex Tan Ken Seng - Alex Tan Ken Seng

Agong's role

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:52:36 +0100

Article 40 of the Federal Constitution provides that the Agong is bound to act on the advice of the PM. The Conference of Rulers is merely consulted - they do not give advice and as such i do not think it is right to say the are the ones who have the final say. And as bad as the politicians are, I do not want to give more power to people who are they merely by an accident of birth. See also Farish Noor's article http://www.othermalaysia.org/content/view/115/1/ As much as we berate these clowns pretending to be politicians, they have some democratic legitimacy. Its our own fault that we keep voting the jokers in. Shanmuga Kanesalingam - Shanmuga Kanesalingam

A misleading sweeping statement...

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:31:54 +0100

Under the Federal Constitution, Art 122B speaks about appointment of judges of Federal Court, Court of Appeal & of High Courts, so it includes the Chief Justice and it provides that "...shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, after consulting the Conference of Rulers" and under Art 38 cl 6, "The members of the Conference of Rulers may act in their discretion in any proceedings relating to the following functions, that is to say: ...(b) the advising on any appointment;..." Clearly, by virtue of these provisions, the appointment of the CJ is to be made by the YDPA on the PM's advice BUT AFTER consulting the Conference and the Conference can exercise their dicretion freely without being bound by anybody's advice. In other words, as far as such appointment is concerned, the Conference holds the last say and the PM's advice is not binding. It is absolutely appalling to see how he failed, with his basic LLB qualification, to appreciate the ordinary meaning of the Constitution. Worst still, in respect of extending the tenure of the CJ, Art 125 cl 1 says this, "Subject to the provisions of Clauses (2) to (5), a judge of the Federal Court shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-six years or such later time, not being later than six months after he attains that age, as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may approve." Clauses (2) to (5) govern situations of judges' misconduct, tribunal and subsequent removal or replacement, therefore it is crystal clear that in terms of allowing the extension or not, the YDPA is free to approve or reject the same, the provision does not in anywhere mention about PM's advice, then how could the minister conveniently said that such a power of the YDPA is bound by the PM's advice?? Didn't he by doing so had tried to undermine the YDPA's authority and also thereby resulted in the total disrespect to the YDPA? If that is the case, it is an offence under s.121B CPC, Offences against the authority of the YDPA, Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri. Despite it is once again proven that the minister did not know his stuffs well before he opened his mouth, I am personally glad for 2 things, first he is no longer in the Bar and that saves us from unimaginable embarrassment, secondly the Constitution was not drafted in accordance with his whim and fancy. Shim Wai Loon - Shim Wai Loon

It'll look bad on the PM

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:36:35 +0100

If Nazri's interpretation of the Federal Constituion is correct and if Fairuz gets his extension, then it will look bad on the PM and not the Agong. The PM will be seen as endorsing Fairuz notwithstanding the implication of the video clip. However, if the three member panel comes up with a finding that the tape is doctored by Oct 27th, then no issue isn't? Malaysia truly boleh!! Kelvin Ng Sin Huat - Kelvin Ng Sin Huat

Nazri should explain himself

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:20:08 +0100

Nazri should explain himself. It was only last week or so I believe that he kept harping on the fact that the Executive are not allowed to interfere with the Judiciary (please correct me if I'm wrong on this). That was one of his many reasons given about we crazy lawyers allegedly asking the PM to interfere pertaining to the recent video clip scandal. Now he is in effect saying that the appointment and extension of the CJ, the head of the Judiciary, is based on the advice of the PM, the head of the Executive, where the advice is MANDATORY for the King to accept. Doesn't this clearly reinforces the fact that the Executive DO control and interfere with the Judiciary? So the Executive will not do anything pertaining to the intergrity of the Judiciary to prevent "interfering" but may extend the tenure of the CJ? Hyprocrisy of the highest order!!!! Tan Choon Heong - Tan Choon Heong

Amend constitution

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:25:16 +0100

Has the time come for us to amend to constitution to vest some powers on the King to safeguard the country from politicians like Nazri? Abdul Fareed Bin Abdul Gafoor - Abdul Fareed Bin Abdul Gafoor