Sunday, May 31, 2020

Malaysia's new constitutional crisis -MPs appointed to the boards of GLCs are disqualified from being MPs; dissolution of Parliament now unavoidable

by Ganesh Sahathevan




  Malaysia's King Abdullah Of Pahang cannot avoid  the matter 
of the legitimacy of his Government.
                                     

Malaysia may be at the brink of a constitutional crisis that has arisen as a result of the appointment of a number of ruling Perikatan Nasional (PN) Members Of Parliament to the boards of government linked companies (GLCs). The appointments have resulted in the MPs holding offices for profit, thus disqualifying them as MPs.

All but nine of the PN's 112 (or more)  MPs are said to have been appointed to GLC boards, some as chairmen, and there have been demands from at least one component party, UMNO, that all MPs be appointed to such positions.
However, in making these appointments, which are widely regarded as a meanss of consolidating his position, PN leader, the Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, seems to have neglected the convention, if not rule, that an  MP  cannot hold an office of profit.

Holding an office of profit is a reason  for disqualification from holding office as an MP.  Given the numbers involved it is difficult to see how a dissolution of Malaysia's Parliament can be avoided.

First, the convention:

While it is true that Malaysian politics, while rooted in the Westminster system, is often played out according to its own peculiar rules, the  current situation where MPs are also on the boards of GLCs raises obvious conflicts of interest; Parliament and its members are  after all meant  to oversee the administration of GLCs. This can include scrutinising GLC  finances, and their management.
Where required MPs may have to pass or review legislation that regulates the structure , management and business operations of GLCs.  Clearly, all this would not be objectively possible if the MPs are also on the boards of those GLCs.

Then , the rule, as stated in the Malaysian Constitution:

Disqualification for membership of Parliament 

48. (1) (c) Subject to the provisions of this Article, a person is disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament i f he holds an office of profit;

The matter of disqualification of a member asa result of holding "an office of profit" has not arisen in Malaysia so no cases on the matter have been located. However, the matter has been discussed and debated extensively in other Commonwealth countries. , including the UK, Australia and India.

Importantly, the Malaysian case is somewhat obvious; that of a prime minister appointing MPs loyal to him to positions at companies he controls, and will continue to control for so long as he has their support.

It is difficult to see how the King can now avoid the fact that his Government must be dissolved.

END

7 comments:

  1. Intrinsics of democracy. Checks and balances.

    ReplyDelete
  2. RULES ARE MEANT TO BE ENFORCED AND FOLLOWED DILIGENTLY.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes but can be bent to suit the top leader's political stance. It has been done numerous times in the past.Mahathir did a lot of that during his time with Umno and PH but nobody dared to question him. So if Mahathir did not do anything wrong (sic) then so is Muhyiddin.

      Delete
  3. Bakri Musa wbere are you with the Malaysian Constitution?How come the PH/PKR Legal experts including the Speaker unaware of such regulations!Ffs start filing in High Court,onto Court of Appeal thence to Federal Court to get Justice served!

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is amazing some leaders love for Malaysia to be a democratic nation yet practiced un-democratic measures to remain in power...

    ReplyDelete
  5. please comment on the following article where some lawyers are interpreting GLC posts as not "office of profit"

    https://focusmalaysia.my/mainstream/glc-posts-not-office-of-profit-say-lawyers/

    ReplyDelete
  6. I dealt with the matter of definition in these paras:


    The matter of disqualification of a member asa result of holding "an office of profit" has not arisen in Malaysia so no cases on the matter have been located. However, the matter has been discussed and debated extensively in other Commonwealth countries. , including the UK, Australia and India.

    Importantly, the Malaysian case is somewhat obvious; that of a prime minister appointing MPs loyal to him to positions at companies he controls, and will continue to control for so long as he has their support.

    ReplyDelete