Vote of No confidence. Part 2/2.

1. Before we tear into what the speaker said about Government bills taking precedence, we shall discuss about some other issues.

2. An oft quoted fetter that is placed on the King's appointment to ask for the resignation of a current PM who ceases to command majority support, is that he can invite the king to dissolve parliament.

3. The King must listen to the PM. He's the PM. He who rules on life and death. Moreover, he's the patron of GOLF.

4. Many will die if Muhyi is not the patron of a many golf event. Many more will be walking the streets like zombies. The PM is omnipotent.

5. He can try and indeed he will. But the King is not obliged to follow. He is after all a King.

6. If the king can smell that's it's just a ploy to preserve the position of the PM then he can refuse the PM.

7. There is a provision in our Constitution that says the King shall first appoint as PM someone in his mind would likely command the support of the majority of MPs unless provided otherwise by parliament.

8. Where is it otherwise provided? In our Constitution is the answer. The king may exercise his discretion in the appointment of a PM and to accede to a proposal to dissolve Parliament. It is clear he can refuse the PM.

9. Next are the question of cost and public health not envisaged by the loyar buruks. Is holding a snap election not costly compared to the easier resignation of the PM? And is it wise to hold a country wide election amidst the pandemic COVID-19?

10. A parliament, speaker and mp subservient to a Minister of the Crown is a new law to me. But that is what the made for u tube speaker is talking about.

11. Asking the minister of law to move a motion of no confidence against the PM is like asking the minister to shoot himself in the foot. I don't think the minister has that kind of testicular fortitude in him.

12. Have we forgotten that it's the PM who appoints the law minister? How can we ask somebody to bite the hand that feeds him? Only Muhyi did that to Mahathir.

13. A motion of no confidence is usually moved by the leader of the opposition. If the minister won't do it, it's like asking the leader of the opposition asking permission from the minister.

14. That's making a mockery of parliament and its process. It's making the whole of parliament subservient to the crown minister.

15. When the 222 MPs were voted in, they swore to uphold the constitution, uphold the rule of law, served the people. The people want a PM serving them not golfing and goofing around. They want their voice heard. Their voice is heard loudest when the vote of no confidence is heard.

16. A parliament subservient to a minister in the discharge of their electoral duties is unheard of. Yet this is what the timid speaker wants parliament to be.

17. He wants a straight-jacketed and taped at the mouth parliament. So he strenuously cites the limp excuse that government businesses must take precedence.

18. What do parliamentary practices, say about this? For this we have to look at what Erskine May say about it. Thomas, Erskine May who was a clerk at the House of Commons wrote a book actually, entitled Parliamentary Practices. I have a copy bought online. I assumed the speaker who is a lawyer has one.

19. The speaker shames the office he is in. He is not subservient to a minister. He is the one who presides on the day business of parliament. He is higher ranked than anyone else in parliament. By saying that such a motion must be moved by the law minister or that the leader of the opposition must get his permission (the minister's) the speaker is just passing the buck.

20. He is a timid and timorous soul who runs away from making tough decisions. When he took office, he swore to defend the constitution and uphold the rule of law. Obviously he won't do these things.

21. Erskine May says a confidence vote must be acceded to and a day allocated to it. That is to test whether the sitting PM has majority support or not. It's so important that a day must be allotted it. It is in recognition of the fact that the opposition is a government in potential. Therefore, it justifies an intrusion in the hearing of government bills only.

22. I would also argue for the motion of confidence on account of natural justice. To act without bias and the general duty to act fairly. The motion is so important that to deny it goes against a sense of natural justice.

23. We take note of the following. There are legal reasons that allow the King to not necessarily heed the advice of the PM. There are conventional reasons for the speaker to allow the motion. Finally, there is the reason of natural justice. We shall wait what the speaker does.

24. The king can also summon Parliament within 6 months of the last sitting. In that session he can prorogue or dissolve parliament. Only in this case he can summon parliament to discuss the issue of confidence. On which side will the King stand?