Saturday, October 8, 2016

Agong's "right and duty" to exercise his reserve powers "should never be in question"- Crt of Appeal & Federal Crt have explained why the Monarch can dismiss the PM

Comment
These relevant parts of the judgement of the Court of Appeal in the matter of Zambry v Nizar (the Perak Assembly case)  make clear that the Agong has the power to dismiss a sitting Prime Minitser:



As Blackstone defined it:- …The medieval King was doth Head of the Kingdom and feudal Lord. He had powers accounted for by the need to preserve the realm against external enemies and an undefined residual power which he might use for the public good…”.  Blackstone’s definition holds true too in (Malaysia).

The nine Rulers in the Malay States are indigenous Rulers and enjoyed their own prerogatives all along.....the traditional prerogatives of the Rulers remain and are buttressed by the Constitution of the respective States. In fact upon independence, our Constitution as drafted under the Chairmanship of Lord Reid, preserved and indeed enhanced the monarchy in Malaysia in several ways as seen in its provisions.
What is rarely displayed however, is the fact that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and Rulers are seized with prerogative privileges and residual rights and powers. Some of which are expressed, others implied.

Unobtrusive as they may seem they are in fact omnipresent and their exercise may have far-reaching effect on the governance of the State. It must be stressed that the Royal Prerogative, discretionary and residual powers do not repose in the royal personages in vain. It is best expressed by Viscount Radcliffe
in Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75 page 113 where His Lordship observed:- “… The essence of a prerogative power if one follows Locke’s thought, is not merely to administer the existing law – there is no need for any prerogative to execute the law – but to act for the public good where there is no law, or even to dispense with or override the law where the ultimate preservation of society is in question.”

 And similarly in the Malaysian context, it was observed by Lee Hun Hoe CJ (Borneo) in Government of Malaysia v Mahan Singh [1975] 2 MLJ 155 that:- “… The King is the first person in the nation – being superior to both Houses in dignity and the only branch of the Legislative that has a separate existence and is capable of performing any act at a time when Parliament is not in being.”

Following from that, it has to be said that, it is not at any time or any situation that this discretionary or prerogative power can be invoked. The general acceptance is that it has to be exercised judiciously.
It is clear that the Crown has a right and duty to protect its realm and citizens in times of war and peace and can invoke its prerogative to that end. That should never be in question.  

The above analysis, handed down by Zainur Ali CA on behalf of the Court of Appeal,  was upheld when the matter went on appeal to the Federal Court.

END



Even PM Najib accepts that there is nothing in law that prevents the Agong from sacking a sitting PM

by Ganesh Sahathevan

These are  the words of PM Najib with regards the Citizens' Declaration presented the Agong:

“In the meeting His Highness took notice of the matter that was brought up by Mahathir. However, the Agong explained to Mahathir that he cannot be involved in what Bersatu is doing.

“This is as the declaration made by Bersatu was not in accordance with the constitution. Any action should be in line with accepted practices via the parliament and electoral system for the rakyat to make their decision,”
The statement is interesting in that Najib sights "accepted practices" and not the Constitution or any other relevant law.In addition , he incorrectly declares the Bersatu declaration "not in accordance with the constitution", when it should be obvious even to him that there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal about anyone or group petitioning the Agong.

The matter of "accepted practices" or convention has been discussed before in a previous posting where it has been pointed out that convention in the Malay context demands that the limits of the Agong's powers be not questioned. Hence, Najib's reliance on convention rather than law in defence of his position is curious, to say the least.

END




Reference

Friday, October 7, 2016


Agong can sack a sitting PM, and Conference of Rulers can remove Agong when he fails to do so.



Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Given that Malaysia's Supreme Ruler or Yang DiPertuan Agong is elected every five years by the Conference of Rulers from among its members, it follows that it is the best interest of the sultans that no one person when elected as Agong act in any way that might be detrimental to their collective interest.

In fact, it does appear as if this right to protect , even defend, their collective interest is provided for in the Constitution of the Federation of Malaysia,which states in Article 38(6)(a):

The members of the Conference of Rulers may act in their discretion in any proceedings relating to the following functions, that is to say;
(a) the election or removal from office of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the election of the Timbalan Yang di-Pertuan Agong;

There does not appear to be any other provision in the Constitution that limits their discretion.

The 14th and current Yang di-Pertuan Agong , Sultan Abdul Halim of Kedah, faces a situation where the exercise of his Constitutional and reserve powers are under intense scrutiny given the 1MDB scandal that implicates his prime minister Najib Razak in theft, money laundering and various other criminal matters that are being investigated in a number of jurisdictions. At stake is the proper governance of his country, and he faces ongoing calls from his people to dismiss his prime minister who has entrenched himself using both political machinery and legislation.The latter has involved the introduction of the National Security Council Act ,which the Conference Of Rulers advised should not be passed without "refinement". In addition, the Agong has been presented with a petition containing 1.3 million signatures imploring him to act.It has been reported that he has refused to consider that petition.

The Agong's refusal has implications for future holders of that office and the Conference Of Rulers as a whole for he oversees both  an erosion of powers and a loss of confidence of  their subjects. 
That loss of confidence will lead to questions about the relevance of the institution of the sultanate ,and surely they must already realize that these questions are in fact being raised. The Conference Of Rulers is clearly in that situation where it has to consider removing the Agong, and perhaps his soon to be appointed successor should he persist  in his predecessor's behaviour, in order to preserve the institution of the sultanate, hereditary rule,and all the privileges that come with it. 

END 

See also 

Agong,Malay Rulers, And Their Powers To Dismiss A Sitting Prime Minister-More

NSC Act pits Chief Of Defence Forces against his Commander In Chief, The Agong-Might the Agong order the CDF be court-martialled?

Friday, October 7, 2016

Agong can sack a sitting PM, and Conference of Rulers can remove Agong when he fails to do so.



Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Given that Malaysia's Supreme Ruler or Yang DiPertuan Agong is elected every five years by the Conference of Rulers from among its members, it follows that it is the best interest of the sultans that no one person when elected as Agong act in any way that might be detrimental to their collective interest.

In fact, it does appear as if this right to protect , even defend, their collective interest is provided for in the Constitution of the Federation of Malaysia,which states in Article 38(6)(a):

The members of the Conference of Rulers may act in their discretion in any proceedings relating to the following functions, that is to say;
(a) the election or removal from office of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the election of the Timbalan Yang di-Pertuan Agong;

There does not appear to be any other provision in the Constitution that limits their discretion.

The 14th and current Yang di-Pertuan Agong , Sultan Abdul Halim of Kedah, faces a situation where the exercise of his Constitutional and reserve powers are under intense scrutiny given the 1MDB scandal that implicates his prime minister Najib Razak in theft, money laundering and various other criminal matters that are being investigated in a number of jurisdictions. At stake is the proper governance of his country, and he faces ongoing calls from his people to dismiss his prime minister who has entrenched himself using both political machinery and legislation.The latter has involved the introduction of the National Security Council Act ,which the Conference Of Rulers advised should not be passed without "refinement". In addition, the Agong has been presented with a petition containing 1.3 million signatures imploring him to act.It has been reported that he has refused to consider that petition.

The Agong's refusal has implications for future holders of that office and the Conference Of Rulers as a whole for he oversees both  an erosion of powers and a loss of confidence of  their subjects. 
That loss of confidence will lead to questions about the relevance of the institution of the sultanate ,and surely they must already realize that these questions are in fact being raised. The Conference Of Rulers is clearly in that situation where it has to consider removing the Agong, and perhaps his soon to be appointed successor should he persist  in his predecessor's behaviour, in order to preserve the institution of the sultanate, hereditary rule,and all the privileges that come with it. 

END 

See also 

Agong,Malay Rulers, And Their Powers To Dismiss A Sitting Prime Minister-More

NSC Act pits Chief Of Defence Forces against his Commander In Chief, The Agong-Might the Agong order the CDF be court-martialled?