Article 43 (4) & The British Convention

Strategy Series 2.4 - Article 43 (4) & The British Convention

Date of Release : 14 January 2021 (Updated at 6.30 pm - Kuala Lumpur)

Desperate DRAFT

*Sequel to Hedging The Voting Mechanism For Budget 2021, The Limitations of The Agong, "Kerajaaan Cabut Lokap" or The "Prison Break" Government. & Strategy Series 2 - Hedging the Impeachment Mechanism

A DESPERATE INTERPRETATION

In a desperate attempt to cause another political upheaval in order to dissolve The Parliament (without any justified political reasonings and arguments for the people other than selective political prosecution.), politicians (and their associates) tied to the "Court Clusters" are making a rushing interpretation on the Malaysian Federal Constitution (having it's root dated from it's Colonial Past). The argument presented by this group (including Najib's loyalist Lokman Adam and a Chinese lawyer from MCA inclined to Najib Razak (who condescendingly dismissed arguments and discussions by many because he had a valid law degree - parroting the similar note on how Ahmad Maslan dismisses others in his interview.).) is Article 43 (4) of The Federal Constitution which states the following

...that if the Prime Minister ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Dewan Rakyat, then unless at the PM’s request the Yang di-Pertuan Agong dissolves Parliament (and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may act in his absolute discretion (Art. 40(2)(b)) the PM and his Cabinet must resign....

1) The above statement stipulates that the Prime Minister must resign. However, there aren't any assertions or mechanism suggested for the Prime Minister to be Constitutionally dismiss/remove or having his authority render invalid. The insertion of the phrase "must resign" is simply an act of good faith and conscience by the Prime Minister if and only if he had exhausted all methods to claim support (whether arguably is strong or weak.) from other members. Read till the end.

THE BRITISH VERSUS "US" VERSION OF MAJORITY

2) The key word is "majority". The argument put forward is such that majority is equal to more than half. The British version of majority differs from the US. The link below highlights the differences on the formal definition of majority according to both British and US interpretations.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/majority

Below is the formal meaning.

the larger number or part of something

So the idea of a majority having more than half plus one only applies if there are two contesting parties. In Malaysian fragmented politics, there seems to be more than two groups contesting.

So which institution has more merit to interpret the wordings of our Federal Constitution with regards to the formal definition of majority? Must we stick to Cambridge English or other recognized institutions?

Though one may argue about majority base on the reference below, the write up focuses majorities in US political demographics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%27s_Rules_of_Order

However, the book further discusses abstention as well as other voting requirements to compensate manipulations and keeping in line with political ethics.

3) To imply that Muhyiddin had lost the majority of the House of Representatives is absolutely incorrect solely base on the withdrawals of support from two Members of Parliament.

a) These two MPs supported Muhyiddin months ago.

b) They have no substantial political grounds to withdraw their support. In other words, their trustworthiness are highly doubted. Though, they have not violated any parts of The Constitution, their decision lacks moral and political ethics even if there is no pandemic present.

c) From a) and b), they are probably praiseworthy to represent UMNO but to arguably substantiate that their decision is strongly base on the interest of the people - highly debatable.

The Constitution is written to protect the people (not any political party). Using The Constitution to topple a valid administration is equivalent to subversive maneuver whether it is legal or otherwise (Does Hate Speech or Incitement of Violence falls under Freedom of Speech?). The legal system whether is fair or selective had been consistent (with politician such as Anwar prosecuted in the past). So if Anwar must go through trial, so must the others. Why didn't the previous administration (under PH or BN) respectively fix the legal system in the past if they kept hinting on interference? You reap what you sow. In other words, being someone with power in the past taking no interest to fix the inherited system you once enjoyed had no moral grounds to question selective prosecution when it is your turn to face the subsequent fate that befalls upon you now. Ethically, they are at fault.

4) Furthermore, the book also stipulates alterations to the calculations on the majority base on abstention as well as other voting requirements. All this must be formally held, discussed and thoroughly defined within The Parliament.

...How do we know that Ahmad Jazlan and Nazri Aziz wont change their stance after weeks or months when Parliament convenes? They withdrew their support after months. They may ended up like Tengku Razaleigh who chose to go offensive in the beginning but abstained at the end of The Budget's third reading....

PN IS A FORMAL POLITICAL COALITION, UMNO + PH IS NOT A RECOGNIZED COALITION

Perikatan National is a formal political entity registered under the R.O.S recognized by the legal system. UMNO/BN + PH is not a formal coalition. Depending on the argument of what constitutes a majority - things can get complicated as votes (against the current Prime Minister) by UMNO + PH may not even be legally allowed to conjoin. This can be an extremely lengthy debate ranging from inconsistencies in political philosophies, voters fraud (imagine obtaining votes to oust UMNO but now conjoining with them.) as well as the legality aspect to proceed with such constant dynamical political maneuvers (definitely there are clause and code of conduct stipulated for members to adhere to.)

Is the majority corresponds to 222 MPs or it corresponds to the three groups (PN, PH and UMNO/BN)?

Malaysian could not afford to have fragmented politics making endless cycle of political alliances and endless change of administration in order to fulfill every side's political expediency by constantly manipulating The Constitution for the interest of the few.

Though UMNO and PH may align base on the principles of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", this will provide justification for the current administration to use the people's interest to stop such political proceeding. The idea of PN is for ABATA (an ideology synonymous to Malay Muslim identity, duality, solidarity, unity and patriotism) to take charge and oust the previous PH administration.

Therefore what are the grounds to dissolve PN? To vanquish ABATA? Why vanquish a coalition which supported ABATA? Because some Malay political leaders are unhappy with the current landscape? Why are they not happy? Is it because some wanted interference while some wanted to be next leader? Personal interest over ABATA? As Malays, it is more treacherous if one fails to uphold it than the rest of the Non-Malays.

It is crystal clear that UMNO or BERSATU must be viciously weed out. Only one must stand and it seems both know about it.

THE BRITISH CONVENTION PROVIDES LEEWAY FOR MUHYIDDIN

Well, despite the differences between Malaysian Constitution and British Convention, The Constitution is inherited from the Westminster Convention. In the event of a hung Parliament with UMNO pulling complete support - the majority is not 100% lost yet on Muhyiddin's side (therefore Article 43 (4) does not necessarily and immediately applies. Governance is not about a bunch of politicians pouncing opportunities at the first sight.). The British Convention provides leeway for Muhyiddin to take control and resist a coup.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/general/hung-parliament/

Muhyiddin had three options

to negotiate with another party or parties to build a coalition
to try and govern with a minority of Members of Parliament (Are there too little Ministers?)
to resign, usually after failing to negotiate a coalition, and recommend that the leader of the largest opposition party be invited to form a government. They may decide to form a coalition or govern as a minority government. (Similar to Article 43 (4). This is exactly what Mahathir did and did not do. Mahathir resigned but never made recommendations for the largest coalition to be in charge. This can get more complicated with different options at hand.)

Although this rule is technically applied after General Election, the scenario is of equivalence and The Convention does show that the Malaysian Constitution was in fact inherited/descended from it's colonial master with the last option being evidentially similar to Article 43 (4).

THE EXPERT HAD SPOKEN

The article below synchronizes harmonically with our thoughts that the legality and legitimacy of the administration which was granted by the Agong still stand until it was proven otherwise by The Federal Court or under the watchful eyes of The Parliament. We are strongly in agreement with the expert that more or less votes in such crucial juncture is inconsequential.

https://www.astroawani.com/berita-politik/dari-sudut-perundangan-kerajaan-pn-masih-lagi-sah-teguh-pakar-perlembagaan-277129

*Whether the designated Federal Constitution and execution has been carried out fairly or otherwise by the current legal system is another topic altogether. Don't seem to recall any moral fairness 4 years ago when we submit our Artificial Intelligence proposal - an absolute bias. Just like what goes around comes around. "Tak suka. Keluarlah."

**Future writings

Wrecking Ball Towards UMNO (Phase 1, 2 & 3). Release dates depending on bidders or our whimsical mood and interest. Total = 3 articles.

Three Articles on Intelligence Series. Titles are kept secret. Probably one each month.

***OOPS, we don't have a valid law degree.