Februari 2008
KUNCI atau kata putus dalam pembubaran parlimen � atau lebih tepat lagi
Dewan Rakyat � terletak di tangan Yang di Pertuan Agong. Ini jelas
disebut oleh Perkara 40(2)(b) Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan dijelaskan
oleh Suruhanjaya Reid dalam laporan mereka pada 1957,� demikian
ditegaskan oleh Profesor Dr Abdul Aziz Bari ketika dihubungi hari ini.
Beliau yang mengajar Undang-Undang Perlembagaan di Universiti Islam
Antarabangsa Malaysia (UIAM), Gombak memberi reaksi terhadap tulisan
seorang penganalisa politik, Kim Quek dalam satu artikelnya yang tersiar
di Malaysiakini.Com minggu lalu.
Dalam artikel tersebut, Kim Quek menanyakan soalan sama ada Yang di
Pertuan Agong boleh menolak atau tidak permintaan membubarkan dewan oleh
Perdana Menteri.
�Soalan itu sebenarnya tidak berbangkit langsung kerana perlembagaan
sendiri dengan jelas mengatakan ia budi bicara Yang di Pertuan Agong�,
tegas Dr. Abdul Aziz.
Pakar perlembagaan itu seterusnya menyatakan bahawa kuasa itu adalah
kuasa budi bicara atau prerogatif yang lazim di semua negara Westminster
di seluruh dunia termasuk Australia dan India dan juga di negara asalnya
United Kingdom.
Kuasa berkenaan juga, katanya disebut dalam Perlembagaan-Perlembagaan
Negeri dan ini bermakna Raja-Raja dan para Yang di Pertua Negeri juga
boleh menolak permintaan untuk membubarkan dewan.
Setakat ini tegas Dr. Abdul Aziz, tidak pernah berlaku penolakan seperti
itu di peringkat Persekutuan.
�Bagaimanapun di peringkat negeri telah beberapa kali permintaan untuk
membubarkan dewan yang dibuat oleh kerajaan negeri ditolak,� ujar
beliau lagi.
Penolakan ini terjadi kali pertamanya pada tahun 1962 di Terengganu,
kemudian di Kelantan pada 1977 dan akhir sekali di Sabah pada 1994.
Di sisi Perlembagaan, ujarnya, pembubaran dewan di peringkat pusat dan
negeri-negeri tidak ada kaitan; ertinya pembubaran di peringkat
Persekutuan tidak semestinya diikuti oleh pembubaran di negeri-negeri.
�Itu adalah urusan antara Raja atau Yang di-Pertua Negeri dengan
Menteri Besar atau Ketua Menteri berkenaan.�
Mengenai alasan kenapa Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh menolak permintaan
Perdana Menteri, Dr Abdul Aziz menyatakan bahawa Perlembagaan menyerahkan
soal itu kepada kebijaksanaan baginda.
�Itulah yang disyorkan oleh Suruhanjaya Reid dalam laporan mereka.
Tetapi pengalaman di banyak negara Komanwel dalam isu ini boleh dirujuk.
Perlembagaan sendiri tidak memberi sebarang petunjuk,� tegasnya.
Tentang kerajaan sementara yang dibangkitkan oleh Ketua Pembangkang, Lim
Kit Siang dua hari lalu, pensyarah kristis itu menegaskan bahawa
Perlembagaan Persekutuan tidak menyebut dengan jelas tentang soal itu.
Bagaimanapun, katanya, Perlembagaan ada membayangkan konsep itu dalam
Perkara 43(2) tatkala menyebut perlantikan Perdana Menteri ketika dewan
sudah dibubarkan.
Walau apa pun, konsepnya jelas dan negara-negara yang komited dengan
demokrasi tulen seperti Britain, Australia dan India mengamalkan konsep
itu tanpa soal.
Adalah tidak logik bagi sesebuah kerajaan yang bergantung kepada mandat
sebuah dewan yang sudah pun dibubarkan untuk membuat janji dan dasar yang
hebat-hebat, tegasnya.
Dalam soal-soal ini, kata Dr Abdul Aziz lagi, perlu ada golongan yang
komited dan terus memperjuangkannya. Ini kerana pihak-pihak yang
sepatutnya berada di hadapan seperti kerajaan yang ada dan pihak SPR
sendiri sengaja memutarbelit konsep berkenaan.
Selain itu, tegasnya mahkamah juga tidak berbuat apa-apa; ia malah
membenarkan menteri berkempen dan membuat janji semasa kempen pilihan
raya dalam satu pilihan raya kecil pada 1981.
Bagi Dr. Abdul Aziz, kes ini jelas menunjukkan bahawa hakim sendiri gagal
memahami apa itu pilihan raya yang bebas dan adil.
�Bagaimanapun kita perlu menyokong insiatif dan komitmen Ketua
Pembangkang dan BERSIH sendiri yang sebenarnya cuba mendidik rakyat dalam
soal ini.
�Saya ingat lagi dalam tahun 1995 Aliran ada menyebut soal �kerajaan
sementara� ini dalam penerbitan bulanan mereka,� tegas beliau sambil
mengharapkan usaha-usaha seperti ini akan memberi impak besar dalam
memperkasa kualiti demokrasi di Malaysia.
BERSIH
Caretaker gov�t: logic and the law Malaysiakini
Abdul Aziz Bari | Feb 14, 08The legal basis of a caretaker government has
to be argued in light of the nature of a government in a parliamentary
system like ours. Of course, given its role and function, there is room
to argue that a caretaker government is not something that is absolutely
necessary. For one thing it is just for a short period and that it merely
carries out routine administration.
This is plausible given that the civil service - which includes the
armed forces and the police force - are still around. Indeed, the system
which includes the judiciary - except the government of the day - still
exists and is operational. On top of that, the ultimate guardian of the
constitution - the Yang di Pertuan Agong - is still there symbolising the
nation.
Be that as it may, under our system, one under the Westminster type, the
government of the day is not directly elected by the people. Unlike under
the American system whereby the executive is directly put in office by the
electorate, the cabinet in the British system is appointed by the head of
state from among members of the legislature.
Of course, one has to bear in mind that although the appointment is made
by the Yang di Pertuan Agong acting under his discretion, he has to
follow certain established rules. Indeed, these rules have been
incorporated into the constitution; namely Article 43(2)(a) of the
federal constitution.
In any case as politicians and political parties would not want to allow
a hung parliament which would put the King in a position to exercise real
discretionary power and they have devised a strategy which reduces the
power of the King to appoint the government - termed Article .40(2)(a) of
the federal constitution.
Under this article, the appointment of the prime minister is a a matter
of pure formality with no real discretion being exercised. In our case,
the ruling coalition has always made it clear who their leader and prime
minister was and the Yang di Pertuan Agong has just been there as a mere
figure handing out appointment letter to successive prime ministers.
Under the presence composition of the Dewan Rakyat, the King must appoint
someone who commands the support of the majority of the members of that
lower house. Under the present provision, the person must at least have
the backing of 112 members of Parliament.
Like in other Westminster constitutions, the federal constitution makes
it clear that should the prime minister - who is also the lynchpin of the
cabinet - lose support he must resign. Normally, this takes place through
a vote of no confidence. The federal constitution makes this clear in
Article 43(4).
As the government stands on the strength of its support in Parliament, it
is only logical that once it ceases to command a majority support it has
no grounds to continue and must resign.
Having seen the relationship between the government and parliament in
Westminster, one now can understand why the government in a parliamentary
democracy is termed as �responsible government�. This actually
underlines the requirement that the government owes its existence to
Parliament and needs to be answerable to the legislature. This is indeed
what Article 43(3) of the constitution is all about. This provision
requires the government of the day - namely the cabinet - to be
responsible to Parliament.
Here lies the basis for question-time in Parliament whereby the prime
minister and the cabinet are supposed to explain to Parliament matters
pertaining to the government and their policies.
Draconian laws passed
The relationship between government and parliament explains the role and
function of caretaker government or perhaps more accurately, its
limitations. Since the foundation of the government is the House, it
automatically ceases to exist the moment parliament - or more correctly
the Dewan Rakyat - is dissolved.
It is certainly illogical for the government to exist and continue when
the very foundation on which it stands is no longer around. This alone is
actually enough to argue that the concept of a caretaker government is
implicit in the constitutional scheme of any Westminster type of
constitution.
The nature of government in the system also implicitly tells us the
limitations of a caretaker government and a government in a position to
lay down policies and administer the nation due to the support it enjoyed
in parliament.
The bottom line of all these explanations is that the Malaysian
government essentially ceased to exist the moment the Yang di Pertuan
Agong consented to the prime minister�s request to dissolve the Dewan
Rakyat yesterday.
It may be argued that there is no need for the Yang di Pertuan Agong to
make a formal appointment for a caretaker prime minister or government as
this is implicit in the act of dissolution made by His Majesty. But of
course it would be better if there is a formal appointment for things
would be made clearer and less doubtful.
Unfortunately, our successive governments since Merdeka never committed
themselves to this fundamental principle. In fact, after the 1969 general
elections, the �caretaker� made an emergency proclamation. A number of
draconian laws were made under this proclamation and continue to be
operative until today.
It was unfortunate that some 31 years later, the Federal Court upheld
that executive action. It appears that the judges of the highest court of
the land overlooked the notion of a caretaker government within our
constitutional structure.
It is true that the constitution does not mention the word �caretaker
government� in any of its provisions. However, anyone who understands
the nature of the cabinet as �responsible government� would straight
away recognise the existence of such an entity within the system.
In any case, after prescribing the way the prime minister and cabinet
ministers are to be appointed under Article 43(2), the constitution says
that a person appointed as prime minister while the House is dissolved
shall not continue to hold the office when the new parliament begins
after the elections. This undoubtedly refers to a caretaker government.
It has to be admitted that the legitimacy and basis of a caretaker
government can only be appreciated through a comprehensive understanding
of government in a Westminster system, something that was incorporated
into the constitution by the Reid Commission way back in 1957.
Constitutionally improper
One also needs to see the constitution as a democratic instrument. It is
certainly illogical and indeed monstrous to suggest that a caretaker
government could initiate new policies or drastic measures such as
proclaiming a state of emergency.
Also implicit in the concept is the prohibition of the use government
facilities for political advantage during an elections. In simple terms,
one could say that as the government has ceased to exist, ministers no
longer hold any portfolios and thus are not in a position to use their
official car, staff and other state resources.
One must admit that in order to allow our democratic institutions and
traditions to develop and grow, those entrusted with public power and
duties must ensure that they follow not only the letter but also the
spirit of the constitution.
On some occasions, however, this has been overlooked. These include the
formation of federal government after the 1999 general elections which
took place some 11 days after the results were announced.
This was constitutionally improper particularly when the prime minister
of the then caretaker government was spending his time, among others,
attending the annual Lima defence industry show. A government should have
been appointed almost immediately after the general elections.
While the constitution does not specify a time-frame, it was certainly
unacceptable to wait 11 days. For one thing, the Yang di Pertuan Agong
has a duty to call upon the leader of the winning coalition to form the
government. This cannot be delayed as the King is under a duty to act on
advice.
It would be recalled that the delay eventually caused havoc and confusion
in the opening of the parliament as the opposition raised the
constitutionality of the government that was actually a caretaker one.
* Dr ABDUL AZIZ BARI is professor of law at the International Islamic
University Malaysia.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my
No comments:
Post a Comment