Vote of No confidence. Part 1

1. I listened to the arguments of the Speaker of the Malaysian parliament. That is the kind of argument which retains the tyranny of the status quo.

2. If that is the way he argues the reason for disallowing a vote of no confidence I am afraid his tenure as speaker will be a short one.

3. His reasons for saying the vote of no confidence will not be possible are
(a) government bills must take precedence and
(b) it must be promoted by a minister.

4. I shall not argue the urgency of such bills purely from a legal outlook per se. The more we get into legal quicksand arguments the farther we get to solve the problem. Legal sophistry only clouds the issue.

5. Because if you were to ask lawyers they will come out with all sorts of answers none of which are right. The speaker is one and his answer is not right. It can always be debated and a bill follows it later.

6. A doctor, an engineer and a lawyer rode a train to Scotland. The doctor looks out the window and saw a black sheep on the hills.

7. The doctor says hey the sheep in Scotland are black. The engineer says you can't say that about sheep in Scotland. You can only say ONE of the sheeps are black. Then the lawyer says. You can't even say that. You can only say one SIDE of the sheep is black!

8. Back to the issue. It's really up to the discretion of the speaker. The Standing Orders and the Constitution are just guidelines. MPs used them to provide locus standi for their protestations.

9. A motion of no confidence is a game changer. The RUU is just a game add-on. The former must be accorded priority.

10. The application of common sense is in order here not a recourse to some archaic legal mumbo jumbo.

11. This is no ordinary motion. It is a litmus test. It's to test whether the PM enjoys support from the majority of MPs. If he does not then he and the entire cabinet must resign.

12. Then the refusal of the speaker to accede to the motion is easily understood. It's an attempt to perpetuate the tyranny of the backdoor government, the demise of the cabinet and to save his own position.

13. These are the logical conclusions otherwise there is no need to bunker up under the nebulous Standing Orders and the Constitution. He's saving the government and his position.

14. So don't take his explanation as a given. As the Malay saying says he's just trying to straighten a wet thread. Or while the index finger is straight, his pinky is hooked.

15. It's illogical to expect a Minister of the Crown to move a motion of no confidence. It won't happen in a million years. We might as well wait until the cat grows horns.

16. It's also ridiculous to think the originator of the motion must first seek permission from the Minister of Law. This is not a judicial review. Did the mover of the RUU motion ask permission from the law minister? No he did not and there was no need to. That would be a blockage on his role as MP. An MP owes a duty to the electorate not to the law minister or even the PM.

17. So if the PM ceases to command support from the majority of MPs, he and the entire cabinet must resign. I have no doubt the current speaker will also lose his job(as speaker)

18. The whole of his arguments were meant to preserve the PMs and his interests which are against the interest of the people.

19. That to me is more cogent than to say it's against the rule of law, Convention, Standing Orders or even the Constitution. The Speaker and Parliament must give voice to the people.

20. An interesting fact is the provision in the constitution that says the King must first appoint someone whom he thinks is LIKELY to command the majority support of the majority of the MPs.

21. To me this is interesting. It means the King may not select the person who claims he has the majority. Secondly the claim is verifiable. It ought to be tested in the dewan rakyat.

22. "Is likely" seems to me is an after the fact thing. Choose first and see whether he has majority support. Muhyiddin has majority support because of the office. Because he was chosen support comes into line.

23. The more preferable choice is to test the claim in the dewan rakyat. This wasn't done in Muhyiddin's case.