The Guardian must apologise to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong

“The decision of the Agong ultimately rests on his personal judgement as to the actual number of MPs who truly support a given candidate should that candidate be given a chance, not how many SDs that candidate may provide”

Raggie Jessy Rithaudeen

تيه ڬواردين واجب موهون معاف ڤد يڠ د-ڤرتوان اڬوڠ

The United Kingdom based daily The Guardian has accused the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of overturning a democratic election result that challenged what the daily described as “a corrupt old order.”

According to the daily, the Agong staged a “Royal Coup”by passing over Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to appoint “the newly independent (Tan Sri) Muhyiddin (Yassin) as Prime Minister, citing his ability to command a parliamentary majority.”

In the first place, the daily completely failed to explain or justify the reason the appointment of Muhyiddin was a “Royal Coup.”




In the second place, the daily skated over tenets to the Federal Constitution of Malaysia that expressly give the Agong the prerogative power to decide who in his majesty’s judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority in the lower house of parliament.

That judgment cannot be questioned, as the Agong is at liberty to decide, upon consideration of all circumstances prevailing at the time of judgment, the right candidate for the post of Prime Minister.

This isn’t just about Members of Parliament who signed Statutory Declarations in support of a particular candidate, but the confidence of the Agong in the support they expressed.

It is a well known fact that Malaysia practices a ‘partisan democracy’ advocated by race leaning parties in their quest for dominance.

It follows, when opinions are sought from MPs regarding their preferred choice of a Prime Minister, they may rally behind a certain individual and commit their support for that individual to ensure that their personal interests jibe with the majority.

However, what an individual MP truly wants or desires may be different from his (or her) pack, which is probably what the Agong wanted to gauge when he met each MP separately.

It follows, the decision of the Agong ultimately rests on his personal judgement as to the actual number of MPs who truly support a given candidate should that candidate be given a chance, not how many SDs that candidate may provide.

Loading...

This is what The Guardian failed to understand.

Insofar as the appointment of a Prime Minister goes, the Federal Constitution does not talk about political parties but the willingness of a majority from the lower house of parliament to support a candidate for the job.



Your donation is much appreciated and will go a long way towards helping us serve you better. Click the donate button below to make a contribution (you don't need a Paypal account to donate through Paypal, simply follow the instructions once you click the button).


SUBSCRIBE TO US ON YOUTUBE:



YOUTUBE: THE THIRD FORCE

TELEGRAM: Raggie Jessy Rithaudeen

TWITTER: Raggie Jessy Rithaudeen

WEBSITE: raggiejessyrithaudeen.com

Loading...

COMMENTS

Comments

Comments



Loading...