Pages

Wednesday, March 04, 2020

The Guardian cakap ayam


FMT:

UK paper accuses Agong of ‘royal coup’ to topple PH govt



Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah swearing in Muhyiddin Yassin as the eighth prime minister on March 1

- Bernama pic
 

PETALING JAYA: Britain’s The Guardian says the downfall of the Pakatan Harapan (PH) government last week, which saw the return of Umno under a new coalition led by Muhyiddin Yassin, was due to a “royal coup”.

“A king has overturned a democratic election result that challenged a corrupt old order. This is wrong and the world ought to call it out,” the daily said in an editorial.


It said it was unfortunate that Umno, which is among the parties backing Muhyiddin’s bloc in a new coalition called Perikatan Nasional, would return to office “thanks to a royal coup enabled by hubris and infighting”.

The paper said the circumstances leading to the collapse of the 21-month-old government showed that former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad “had badly miscalculated in believing only he could hold the government together and would thereby be reappointed by the king”.

“In the event, the monarch passed over Dr Mahathir and decided to appoint the newly independent Mr Muhyiddin as prime minister, citing his ability to command a parliamentary majority,” it added.


Can't understand it when I am the MOSTEST BEST PM in the world, WTF 

Firstly, we must understand the political 'leanings' of the Guardian.

Wikipedia informs us:

Founded by textile traders and merchants, in its early years The Guardian had a reputation as "an organ of the middle class", or in the words of C. P. Scott's son Ted, "a paper that will remain bourgeois to the last".

Associated at first with the Little Circle and hence with classical liberalism as expressed by the Whigs and later by the Liberal Party, its political orientation underwent a decisive change after World War II, leading to a gradual alignment with Labour and the political left in general. [...]

The paper's readership is generally on the mainstream left of British political opinion, and its reputation as a platform for liberal and left-wing editorial has led to the use of the "Guardian reader" and "Guardianista" as often-pejorative epithets for those of left-leaning or "politically correct" tendencies.


Hardly a pro monarchy (or even neutral) news media, thus I am not surprised at the preposterous allegation that the Agong had been naughtily involved in elevating Muhyiddin into becoming the new PM.


Secondly, Malaysia practises the Westminster parliamentary system, where the following should be observed (again, from Wikipedia):

A head of government (or head of the executive), known as the prime minister (PM), premier, chief minister or first minister. While the head of state appoints the head of government, constitutional convention suggests that a majority of elected members of parliament must support the person appointed. If more than half of elected parliamentarians belong to the same political party, then the parliamentary leader of that party typically is appointed.


The head of state or his or her representative (such as a governor-general) formally appoints as the head of government whomever commands the confidence of the elected chamber of the legislature and invites him or her to form a government.

Looking at para 2 just above, in the early morning of 10 May 2018, the Agong invited initially Wan Azizah of Pakatan, then (after Wan declined) Mahathir to become the country's PM, even though Pakatan Harapan only obtained slightly over 48% of the total votes (and not more than 50% of the total votes). 


48% so what, that's the Westminster system, full stop.

Similarly, when the Agong assessed Muhyiddin and not Mahathir
 commanded the confidence of the elected chamber of the legislature he invited the former to become the new/8th PM.

M Bakri Musa who have been writing extensively on Malaysian (and Malay) issues, narrated:

The Agung’s process in appointing Muhyiddin as Prime Minister merits scrutiny. Granted, Malaysia has never faced a similar challenge before, which makes the decision-making process critical. If unchallenged it could be precedential. 

Dispensing with the constitutional propriety of the Agung consulting the Attorney-General (a political appointee) and the Chief Justice (who may have to adjudicate the matter later), I would have been more reassured had the Agung sought independent legal counsel. Malaysia has no shortage of such luminaries. Even if they were to charge their customary fees, that would still have been worth it. One good solid advice is worth thousands of free ones, especially when those freebies have a stake in the Agung’s decision.

The Agung did consult his brother rulers. One of them skipped, perhaps busy cavorting with yet another Russian beauty. Significantly, the Agung bypassed the four governors. Ever wonder at the increasing chatter for secession in East Malaysia?

I don’t blame the Agung for this major oversight. He is new at his job. Instead I put the blunder straight upon his advisors, specifically the Keeper of the Royal Seal and the government’s Chief Secretary. They are but glorified overpaid clerks.

Even if there had been an error by his Agong (that Muhyiddin had fibbed to him, with the fib being unwittingly (or otherwise) sanctified by advisors to the Agong, the Westminster system was observed.


Pakatan (and Mahathir) still has a chance to challenge Muhyiddin's 'majority' in parliament (when it resumes, wakakaka).

If the Guardian still insists on the Agong being complicit in a 'royal' coup, then I ask it to recall and review the 1975 Australian constitutional crises when the then Governor-General of Australia (HM the Queen's representative in Australia) dismissed PM Gough Whitlam and replaced him with opposition leader Malcolm Fraser, a situation not unlike our current case.


Australian Governor-General John Kerr 1975

He sacked then-PM Gough Whitlam and as a result of heat-white hatred towards him (a la Pakatan's, wakakaka), he left Australia for Britain and never ever (dared not) return to his home shores



Gough Whitlam

sacked PM
 


then new PM a la Muhyiddin  


HM Queen Elizabeth II & PM Malcolm Fraser 

6 comments:

  1. It is not unfounded to suspect not everything was prim and proper in how the Royalty ultimately ruled.

    But at this moment it remains a mere suspicion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. i believe everyone hv their bias n preference, if i am given a choice to choose, i would do my best not to pick mahathir even if he command majority. i thot mahathir shd know tis.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Normally, Guardian ought to be Ah Moks favourite British paper.
    Leftie, highly critical of Conservatives, USA, Israel, Australian Liberals, supportive of Palestinians etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it NORMALLY is, but I'm not blind

      Delete
    2. Guardian may well be at least partly right on the allegation of bias.

      Delete
  4. Moo Moo fueled this suspicion by not willing to furnish the list of MPs who supposedly gave him the majority. Now that the first parliamentary seating is postponed to 18th May, many an MPs are in for a good rollicking time, gearing up for the highest bidder$. As for the Agong, the less said the better, going by the report that three, or is it four, individuals were brought in, grilled for attitudes of varying degree of being biadapish, wakakakaka

    ReplyDelete