Kim Quek: Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaacob is wrong. What was done by previous PMs on the dissolution
of Parliament – where the PM appeared to act unilaterally to dissolve
Parliament – is no passport for him to repeat the same act.
The past governments were under the thumb of Umno’s hegemonic rule
where the PM’s word is as good as that of the cabinet. But the present
government is a rag-tag grouping of opportunistic power cliques where no
single political party has the dominant say.
Any move by Ismail Sabri to seek dissolution of Parliament against the expressed wishes
of the cabinet would be deemed an attempt to violate Article 40(1) of
the Federal Constitution, where it is unequivocally stated that the
power to advise the Agong is vested with the cabinet; and when the PM
advises the Agong, he is deemed to be “acting under the general
authority of the cabinet.”
In case of doubt, it is pertinent to note that such principle of collective leadership is further reinforced in Article 43(1) which states: “The Cabinet shall be collectively responsible to Parliament.”
I
am confident that Agong would give due respect to this constitutional
provision when he is advised by the PM to dissolve Parliament,
especially when the latter is acting against the expressed wishes of the
cabinet.
Kilimanjaro: Yes, for now, the PM has the prerogative to advise the
king when to dissolve but this can and will and shall change in view of
the dynamics of political coalitions that appear to become the norm.
Unlike
the days of Umno/BN, where until 2008 it had the two-thirds majority
and the decision of the PM in this matter is a given and it still is,
the next coalition should explore revising the amendment of this
"prerogative" power.
It doesn't make sense that a PM representing a
coalition government would have to listen to a party he comes from
instead of reaching a collective consensus of the coalition partners.
It
happened with former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, and it may
happen with current PM Ismail Sabri. It has become a necessity in the
wake of Umno’s indiscretions in that what has been an accepted norm is
being hijacked by one party in a coalition for its own reasons.
It
then may become necessary in making it a constitutional requirement for
a consensus to be reached among coalition partners before the PM takes
it to the king. From thereon, it is the king's court that prevails.
Umno
has to be careful what it wishes for. It cannot pretend anymore that it
can dominate the way it did in the past, and more so when the sort of
baggage it is carrying had diminished its value.
It may have clout
within Umno, perceived or otherwise, but not just the dynamics but also
the political landscape has changed. It may not wish to move on with
the times, but it most likely will be left behind to bask in past glory.
