Johor Pakatan cancels tabling no-confidence vote against MB after Sultan cautioned against ‘disruption’
Johor PH chapter chief Aminolhuda Hassan said the decision was made after Sultan Ibrahim Iskandar informed all assemblymen to abide by the coming state assembly’s proceedings in Kota Iskandar on that day, with the Johor ruler saying he does not want any ‘disruption’
Picture by Ben Tan
JOHOR BARU, May 11 — The Johor Pakatan Harapan (PH) will not be tabling a no-confidence motion against Mentri Besar Datuk Hasni Mohammad during the opening of the state assembly sitting this Thursday, chapter chief Aminolhuda Hassan said today.
He said the decision was made after Sultan Ibrahim Iskandar had recently informed all assemblymen to abide by the coming state assembly’s proceedings in Kota Iskandar on that day, with the Johor ruler saying he does not want any “disruption”.
“We in PH Johor will abide and respect the royal institution. With that, there will be no motion coming from us, especially on the no-confidence against Datuk Hasni.
“Tuanku has made it clear that he does not want any disruption when he officiates the Johor state legislative assembly sitting on May 14,” Aminolhuda told Malay Mail, referring to the sultan.
Aminolhuda said the sultan’s message was relayed to Johor PH leaders through state assembly Speaker Suhaizan Kaiat.
He was responding to rumours that PH may initiate a no-confidence vote against Hasni on that day.
Aminolhuda explained that all 27 PH assemblymen would be attending the one-day sitting.
He said the assemblymen have carried out all the necessary online registration to attend the opening.
“At the same time, we also hope that the state Perikatan Nasional (PN) assemblymen will also abide by the Sultan of Johor’s advise on the matter.
“Hopefully, they will not bring their motion to replace Speaker Suhaizan,” said Aminolhuda, referring to Johor PN assemblymen.
Aminolhuda, who is the Johor Parti Amanah Negara chief and also Parit Yaani assemblyman, said that PN does not have the numbers to oust the Speaker.
He claimed that the alleged statutory declarations it wanted its assemblymen to sign did not get the support needed.
Last week, Johor’s political atmosphere was heated after both state PN coalition parties Bersatu and Umno had a tense stand-off.
There were also rumours that PH will table a no-confidence motion against Hasni. At the same time, it was revealed that there was a plot to oust Suhaizan from his role.
The Johor state legislative assembly is scheduled to meet for a day on Thursday.
Johor has a total of 56 state assembly seats. PN holds 29 seats with Umno having 14, followed by Bersatu (11), MIC (two), PAS (one) and one Independent.
Johor PH has a total of 27 seats with DAP leading with 14, Amanah (nine) and PKR (four).
This was 4 days ago. I wonder what HM meant by not wanting any ‘disruption’?
Did his 'disruption' mean ADUNs 'displaying' the aerodynamic characteristics of chairs and tables, wakakaka, or name calling a la the Melaka DUN?
I'm from Melaka DUN, oink oink
Or, did it mean there must be NOT be any motion proposed for a vote of no confidence on the Johor MB?
Well, yesterday HM via the MB said HM's decree has been for the ADUNs to work together to help the people who are struggling amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, and that ADUNs are expected to be able to interpret the “divisive virus”, which HM described as more dangerous than the coronavirus.
And you know something mateys, HM has been correct, that the virus of political divisiveness could be and probably is far more deadly than Covid-19.
Switching to what RPK has been preaching for a while at his blog, that "Maybe Malaysia’s Westminster System of Parliament has been modelled after UK’s Westminster System of Parliament, however, there is a slight difference. The UK has three branches of government while Malaysia has four. This is because alongside the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, Malaysia also has the Monarchy."
When he said this a couple of years back, of course I originally disbelieved him as there's NOTHING written legally (constitutionally) on what he said, to wit, the Monarchy is a fourth branch of the government. In fact, in a Westminster parliamentary democracy, the royal head of state serves only as the nation's constitutional head (with no executive power), principally as a symbol of national unity, full stop.
While that may be so, that is, there's NOTHING written legally (constitutionally) about a constitutional head of state having executive powers, the reality is he was/is right ... in a certain way, by virtue of our feudalistic past of absolute monarchs, which alas in some cases has crept forth into our politics today. Thus we have sometimes witnessed monarchs of some states in Malaysia acting as if they were NOT only a branch of the government but a branch that has overriding powers even over the other 3 branches (executive, legislative and judiciary).
Take for example, after the Satay-rised Kajang by-election on 23 March 2014, when PR nominated Wan Azizah as its new MB to replace Khalid Ibrahim, HRH rejected her candidature. On constitutional terms, HRH had no such powers. Instead, with some no-doubt instigating anti-Anwar and anti-women conniving 'advice' from 'interested' parties or rather parties with 'interests', HRH ignored Pakatan Rakyat's nomination.
Wikipedia informs us: The Sultan requested that each coalition party submit three names for his consideration. PKR and the DAP submitted only Wan Azizah's name, while PAS submitted others.
On 22 September, the Sultan announced the appointment of Azmin. He was sworn into office the following morning.
Indeed, ignoring the sole nomination of the majority of Pakatan Rakyat HRH plucked a candidate out of the left field and ber-'titah' that Azmin Ali was the MB of Selangor. As mentioned earlier, in accordance with the Westminster parliamentary practice, HRH did NOT have that right nor power, but so what, he exercised his royal prerogative then. No one dared say otherwise?
The same had occurred in some other states too. Those were instances when Malay rulers eff-ed the Westminster constitution kaukau.
However, only 2 men in Malaysian history have the gumption to defy royal orders and wishes, namely, Tunku Abdul Rahman and Mahathir Mohamad.
The former, Tunku, himself a 'royal' would of course enjoy the intrinsic advantage of acting as a member of the royalty, but nonetheless it has to be said he did it with courtly grace and subtlety so the monarchs were never embarrassed or infuriated, whilst the other, a Mamak, did it in exactly the opposite way to Tunku.
Tunku did it to ensure the monarchs did not exceed their constitutional roles/limitations, in other words, ensuring the government would only be of three arms (executive, legislative and judiciary). Mahathir OTOH did it for his own political conveniences, meaning the Malaysian government would have only one arm, that of the executive, namely, himself.
Well, Tunku had long gone, and may his gracious soul be in the embrace of Allah swt, whilst Mahathir is a slowly but inevitably closing chapter in Malaysian political history. So the question asked is: Will RPK's assertion of a four-armed Malaysian government continue to be true in the future?