This question of whether the ruler of a state has discretion over whom he wants as MB is in the news because of what's happened in Perlis and Selangor.
In Perlis, the ruler made his choice despite the fact that none of BN's state reps supported that person. In Selangor, Pakatan's original preferred candidate was not chosen. Both cases are different although the principle involved is the same. It all hinges on whether the ruler has discretion over this matter.
It's similar to the case of whether the king has discretion over who the PM should be. When Pakatan won the general election, Pakatan put forth only one name: Dr M's, as their PM candidate. According to press reports, the king actually preferred Wan Azizah (his dislike of Dr M is well known) but she declined and Pakatan as a whole stuck to its guns. After some delay, Dr M was sworn in as PM.
Something similar happened with the AG candidate. All Pakatan component parties wanted Tommy Thomas and they submitted only his name. Apparently the king wanted more options but again Pakatan stuck to its guns and insisted on Thomas as their only choice. Again after some delay, Thomas was sworn in.
In Perlis, UMNO actually boycotted the swearing in of the rulers choice of MB to signal their protest. Afterwards, the state reps apologized to the ruler and subsequently seemed to accept his choice although some quarters in UMNO insists that the matter is going to be settled in the courts. It's not clear whether the legal case is being pursued. Most likely UMNO will throw in the towel on this one so as to avoid a clash with the ruler. This, despite the fact that UMNO actually has a 2/3 majority in that state.
In Selangor, there seems to be two rival factions within PKR. Wan Azizah seemed to be with the other component parties in wanting Idris Ahmad as MB while former MB Azmin Ali preferred Amirudin. In the end, Wan Azizah agreed to submit three names for the sultan to consider. The other parties didn't object and Amirudin was chosen. There's little that Idris can do despite earlier having support letters from all four component parties because three names were submitted for consideration.
If Pakatan as a whole had insisted on submitting just one name and the sultan refused to accept that candidate, it would have led to a constitutional crisis. If push came to shove, would the sultan have eventually given in or would Pakatan. We won't know because Pakatan obviously did give in.
However this whole issue of the role of a constitutional monarchy is far from resolved. At the federal level, the king averted a constitutional crisis by accepting Dr M and Thomas as PM and AG, respectively. In Perlis and Selangor it looks like a crisis was averted by the winning parties backing down on their demands.
The constitutionality of it all has not actually been tested because in all these cases, one party backed down. It should be noted however that all legal experts who have weighed in on this matter believe that in a constitutional monarchy, the ruler has to appoint the preferred candidate of the winning party.
In Perlis, the ruler made his choice despite the fact that none of BN's state reps supported that person. In Selangor, Pakatan's original preferred candidate was not chosen. Both cases are different although the principle involved is the same. It all hinges on whether the ruler has discretion over this matter.
It's similar to the case of whether the king has discretion over who the PM should be. When Pakatan won the general election, Pakatan put forth only one name: Dr M's, as their PM candidate. According to press reports, the king actually preferred Wan Azizah (his dislike of Dr M is well known) but she declined and Pakatan as a whole stuck to its guns. After some delay, Dr M was sworn in as PM.
Something similar happened with the AG candidate. All Pakatan component parties wanted Tommy Thomas and they submitted only his name. Apparently the king wanted more options but again Pakatan stuck to its guns and insisted on Thomas as their only choice. Again after some delay, Thomas was sworn in.
In Perlis, UMNO actually boycotted the swearing in of the rulers choice of MB to signal their protest. Afterwards, the state reps apologized to the ruler and subsequently seemed to accept his choice although some quarters in UMNO insists that the matter is going to be settled in the courts. It's not clear whether the legal case is being pursued. Most likely UMNO will throw in the towel on this one so as to avoid a clash with the ruler. This, despite the fact that UMNO actually has a 2/3 majority in that state.
In Selangor, there seems to be two rival factions within PKR. Wan Azizah seemed to be with the other component parties in wanting Idris Ahmad as MB while former MB Azmin Ali preferred Amirudin. In the end, Wan Azizah agreed to submit three names for the sultan to consider. The other parties didn't object and Amirudin was chosen. There's little that Idris can do despite earlier having support letters from all four component parties because three names were submitted for consideration.
If Pakatan as a whole had insisted on submitting just one name and the sultan refused to accept that candidate, it would have led to a constitutional crisis. If push came to shove, would the sultan have eventually given in or would Pakatan. We won't know because Pakatan obviously did give in.
However this whole issue of the role of a constitutional monarchy is far from resolved. At the federal level, the king averted a constitutional crisis by accepting Dr M and Thomas as PM and AG, respectively. In Perlis and Selangor it looks like a crisis was averted by the winning parties backing down on their demands.
The constitutionality of it all has not actually been tested because in all these cases, one party backed down. It should be noted however that all legal experts who have weighed in on this matter believe that in a constitutional monarchy, the ruler has to appoint the preferred candidate of the winning party.
No comments:
Post a Comment