There is no need for Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob to table a confidence vote in the Dewan Rakyat, the attorney-general said today.
Idrus Harun said if Ismail’s legitimacy still needed to be tested by any party, apart from the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, it would mean the absolute power of the King could be overridden.
“And this is not in line with the Federal Constitution,” he said in a statement.
Idrus said the Yang di-Agong had on Aug 21 appointed Ismail as the 9th prime minister which is in line with Article 40(2)(a) and 43(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution…
“It is clear the appointment of the prime minister is a constitutional responsibility and His Majesty has the absolute powers.
“The procedure to determine which MP has the majority in the Dewan Rakyat has been decided by His Majesty,” he added.
Idrus added that the King had sought the stand of the 220 MPs on their choice as prime minister through statutory declarations.
The Vatican plus three repressive Gulf States, Brunei and Swaziland are the remaining Absolute Monarchies on the planet. Yet it appears that the grovelling Attorney General of Malaysia would like to return his country to this outmoded system of government seen only now in mini-states.
In the process he apparently suggests that it would be up to the new PM to table a vote of confidence against himself when, of course, that is the decision and right of the opposition leader. The AG’s brother who is the Speaker is then bound by the rules to allow it to be swiftly heard.
However, the clique of family and friends who now reckon they can rule Malaysia with an iron rod, despite their wafer thin majority and status as the losers of the last election, seem willing to drive a coach and horses through the rules and to lecture Malaysians with nonsense theories, such as that the appointment of PM by the Agong cannot be tested because it is his ‘Absolute Power’.
Do they think people are stupid? People know:
a) The rotating King of Malaysia is NOT an Absolute Monarch.
b) A parliamentary majority is NOT determined through the present incumbent of the role’s novel inventions of taking SDs and talking to some or all MPs (which he sometimes but not always chooses to abide by). It is determined by evidence of a working majority in Parliament, tested if required by the leader of the Opposition with a No Confidence vote.
This appalling ‘legal reasoning’ on the part of the supposedly most senior law officer in the land would not stand up in a minor court let alone the court of public opinion. It is clearly a blatant attempt to justify the obvious plan by his own brother to abuse his own position as Speaker by denying such a vote were to it be requested by the Leader of the Opposition.