Archive for the ‘Institution of Monarchy’ Category

Honouring our nation’s architect and architecture

Friday, February 3rd, 2017

FEBRUARY 8 is the day of birth of Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, the father of our nation and the guiding light behind the Merdeka Agreements, the Merdeka Constitu­tion and the “social contract” that is implicit in our constitutional charter.

In honouring the memory of Tunku, it would be appropriate to rededicate ourselves to the ideals and values that animate our Federal Constitution and to reaffirm the Constitution’s position as the chart and compass and sail and anchor of our nation’s endeavours.

A group of civil society leaders has done just that by proposing that our nation’s Rukunegara be adopted as the Preamble to our Constitution.

The Rukunegara, proclaimed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on Aug 31, 1970, contains five far-reaching, social and political objectives and five cardinal principles that gel well with the glittering generalities of our Constitution.

The five objectives are: to achieve greater unity among Malaysians; to maintain a democratic way of life; to create a just society in which the wealth of the nation is equitably shared; to ensure a liberal approach to our rich and diverse cultural traditions; and to build a progressive society which shall be oriented towards modern science and technology.

To achieve these five admirable objectives, the architects of the Rukunegara adopted five cardinal principles: belief in God; loyalty to King and country; upholding the Constitution; rule of law; and good behaviour and morality.

Not surprisingly the “Rukunegara Muqad­dimah Perlembagaan” (RMP) initiative has been opposed by many groups. The prominent criticisms, most of them grossly unjustified, are the following:

Initiative is redundant: It is argued by some scholars that the Articles of the Constitution already incorporate most of the objectives and principles of the Rukunegara. Also, Malaysia as a nation has performed commendably over the last 59 years and the initiative is quite unnecessary.

In reply to this it can be pointed out that constitutionalism is a journey and not a destination. While we have done well relatively speaking, there are dark clouds over the horizon.

The Constitution is under attack. Extre­mism is on the rise. Communal relations are frayed and a reinforcement of the ideals of the Constitution and the Rukunegara is timely.

Islam: The proponents of the Islamic state are arguing that the adoption of the Rukunegara would undermine Islam and the move towards an Islamic state built on sya­riah law.

In reply it can be pointed out that there is nothing in the Rukunegara that undermines Article 3(1) on Islam as the religion of the Federation.

In fact, the belief in the supremacy of the Constitution entails fidelity to Article 3(1) on Islam; the position of the King and the Rulers as head of Islam; and power of the State Assemblies to legislate on specified matters of the syariah that are enumerated in Schedule 9, List II para 1.

Though it is true that the Rukunegara refers to belief in “Tuhan” and “God” instead of “Allah”, this was absolutely necessary to take note of our multi-religious population, especially in Sabah and Sarawak. In any case, some Peninsular Malaysian Muslims are sensitive about use of the word “Allah” by non-Muslims.

Malay special position: It is wrongly alleged that the Rukunegara would weaken Malay special position, especially the idea of ketuanan Melayu.

In fact, the emphasis on a just society in which the wealth of the nation is equitably shared gels well with Article 153 on the special position of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities.

Liberalism: The allegation that the Rukunegara’s support for “a liberal approach” is contrary to Malaysian values is ill-conceived and malicious. “A liberal approach” in the Rukunegara alludes to tolerance and acceptance of our rich and diverse cultural traditions – one of our nation’s strong points till lately.

Atheists: Some say that “belief in God” would violate the rights of atheists, agnostics, spiritualists, Sikhs, Theravada Buddhists, animists and many others whose innermost beliefs are not centred around God.

Here again, one must point out that the Constitution protects freedom of religion in Article 11 and, if creatively interpreted, Arti­cle 11 refers to all systems of beliefs, including animism.

by SHAD SALEEM FARUQI
Read more @ http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/reflecting-on-the-law/2017/02/02/honouring-our-nations-architect-and-architecture-the-rukunegara-gels-well-with-the-glittering-genera/#gRlDppVKqDRh1SFb.99

Welcoming the new King

Thursday, December 22nd, 2016

THE election and accession to the federal throne of Sultan Muhammad V is a historic occasion for Kelantan. This is the second time a sovereign from the state has graced the office of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. The first time was from Sept 21, 1975 to March 29, 1979.

Constitutional position: In our system of constitutional monarchy, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is the formal head of the executive branch. A vast array of powers is vested in his office by the Constitution.

The functions of the King are not confined to the executive field but extended to the legislative and judicial branches as well. He is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and the head of Islam in eight regions – his own state, Penang, Malacca, Sabah, Sarawak, Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya.

A literal reading of the Constitu­tion may create the impression that the monarchy is the real seat of power in the country, but the legal position is different. The King is the symbolic and formal head of state, but not the head of government.

He is the repository of vast autho­rity and dignity but very little power. He reigns but does not rule. In performing most of his functions, he is required to act on advice: Articles 40(1) and 40(1A). Save for some specific situations, the real wielder of political power is the Prime Minister.

Three categories: The powers and functions of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong can be divided into three broad categories:

> Non-discretionary powers in the exercise of which the King acts on advice;

> Discretionary powers explicitly conferred by the Constitution; and

> Residual and reserve powers.

Non-discretionary powers: In accordance with Articles 40(1) and 40(1A), most of the powers of the King are exercised “in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet”. “Advice of the Cabinet” conventionally means “advice of the Prime Minister”.

There are two clarifications to Article 40(1). First, in relation to the appointment of judges and the Auditor-General, the King acts on the advice of the Prime Minister but only after “consultation” with the Conference of Rulers.

Consultation does not mean consent. Nevertheless, if the Conference of Rulers’ advice clashes with the Prime Minister’s advice, manifold possibilities arise.

Second, in relation to some functions, the King acts not on the advice of the Prime Minister but of other constitutional bodies like the Par­dons Board and the Council of Islamic Affairs.

However, despite His Majesty’s duty to act on advice, the King is not a mere cipher or mouthpiece of his advisers. He has a right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn.

Under Article 40(1), he may ask for any information in the possession of the Cabinet and the information cannot be withheld from him despite the Official Secrets Act. He may temper the counsel of his advisers and offer guidance from his own fund of experience.

He can privately remonstrate and offer strong objections to a proposed course of action, especially if the Conference of Rulers, acting under Article 38(2), had deliberated on a question of national policy and communicated its reservations to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

The views of the Conference of Rulers under Article 38(2) are not binding on the Federal Government, but there is no doubt they could influence the nation’s goals and policies, and supply check and balance.

Discretionary functions: The general duty of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to act on advice is qualified by Article 40(2), which explicitly confers on him discretionary powers in some areas. These are:

> Appointment of the Prime Minister. This power is merely symbolic if the winner of a general election has an absolute majority in the Dewan Rakyat. But if there is a hung Parliament (in which no party commands a majority), the Monarch’s discretion can shape the nation’s political destiny;

> Refusal to dissolve the Dewan Rakyat before the expiry of its five years;

> Requisitioning of a meeting of the Conference of Rulers; and

> “Any other case mentioned in the Constitution”. These words probably refer to the King’s right to seek information under Article 40(1); the right to delay legislation by 30 days under Article 66(4A); appointments to the Public Services Commission and the Election Com­mission; the appointment under Article 43(2) of a caretaker government during the dissolution of Parliament; the right to refuse advice of the caretaker government during a dissolution; and compliance with the instructions of the Conference of Rulers under Article 38(2).

All the above powers are personal to the King. Though he may seek advice, he is not bound by it.

Reserve powers: Life is always larger than the law and no consti­tution can provide for every contingency. Lawyers generally agree that in addition to powers explicitly granted by a constitution, a head of a state possesses some reserve, unenumerated, inherent and prerogative powers that are implicit in the scheme of things.

Included in this list is the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn; the right to award honours; and the right to refuse assent to legislation deemed by the Conference of Rulers to be unconstitutional.

by SHAD SALEEM FARUQI.

Read more @ http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/reflecting-on-the-law/2016/12/22/welcoming-the-new-king-despite-his-majestys-duty-to-act-on-advice-the-king-is-not-a-mere-mouthpiece/

Sultan Muhammad V arrives to ascend throne as 15th Yang di-Pertuan Agong

Tuesday, December 13th, 2016
Sultan Muhammad V at Parliament Square.

Sultan Muhammad V at Parliament Square.

SEPANG: Kelantan Ruler Sultan Muhammad V has arrived at the Bunga Raya Complex, KL International Airport (KLIA), for the swearing-in ceremony and signing of the instrument of office as the 15th Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

Sultan Muhammad V arrived at 10.16am Tuesday and was welcomed by the Raja Muda Selangor, Tengku Amir Shah, Tengku Laksamana Selangor, Tengku Sulaiman Shah and Communications and Multimedia Minister Datuk Seri Dr Salleh Said Keruak, as Chairman of the Special Committee.

His Majesty passed by a static honour guard comprising two officers and 26 men of 1st Unit Royal Ranger Regiment led by Captain Mohd Hafiz Mohamad Noor, and proceeded in a motorcade to Parliament Square for the ceremonial welcome.

Sultan Muhammad V,47, was elected as the 15th Yang di-Pertuan Agong at the 243rd (Special) Meeting of the Conference of Rulers in October.

The meeting also elected the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Nazrin Shah, as the Timbalan Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

In KUALA LUMPUR, the arrival of Sultan Muhammad V at Parliament Square at 11am was greeted by “nafiri” music performed by 14 members of the Army Royal Ceremonial Ensemble.

Sultan Muhammad V was welcomed by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and his wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, and Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.

His majesty was then escorted to the royal dais past an honour guard of lance bearers as the main honour guard stood in salute and the “Negaraku” (national anthem) was played by the central band of Royal Malay Regiment led by Captain Muhammad Nor Azizan Yahya.

Simultaneously, the colours of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong were hoisted, followed by a 21-gun salute.

Sultan Muhammad V then inspected a guard-of-honour comprising four officers and 103 men of 1st Battalion Royal Malay Regiment led by Major Mohd Riduan Basheer.

BERNAMA.

Read more @ http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/12/13/sultan-muhammad-v-arrives-to-ascend-throne-as-15th-yang-di-pertuan-agong/

Youngest Ruler selected

Saturday, October 15th, 2016

PETALING JAYA: Sultan Muhammad V of Kelantan, who at 47 is the youngest of the Malay Rulers, will be the next Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

The British-educated Sultan of Kelantan will be the 15th Yang di-Pertuan Agong since Malaysia’s independence.

Sultan Muhammad was selected on the final day of the three-day sitting of the Conference of Rulers amid the grand setting of the Istana Negara. The Keeper of the Rulers’ Seal Datuk Seri Syed Danial Syed Ahmad said the ascension will be effective on Dec 13 for the next five years.

Sultan Muhammad succeeds the 88-year-old Kedah Ruler, Sultan Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah, whose five-year reign as King officially ends on Dec 12.

In a surprising turn of events, Perak Ruler Sultan Nazrin Muizzuddin Shah, 59, was selected as the Deputy Yang di-Pertuan Agong. It had been widely expected that the Pahang Ruler Sultan Ahmad Shah, who was next in line for the post of Deputy King, would be selected.

Sultan Ahmad, who turns 86, later this month, was seen being driven in a yellow buggy inside the Palace to attend the meeting on the first day of the sitting.

This the first time that both the newly selected King and Deputy King are a generation younger than most of the other Rulers.

Sultan Muhammad was the Deputy Yang di-Pertuan Agong before his elevation to the throne.

He was addressed as Tuanku Muhammad Faris Petra before he took the official title of Sultan Muhammad V, in line with the title of Sultan Muhammad used by his ancestors.

He is the firstborn of three sons and a daughter by Sultan Ismail Petra Ibni Almarhum Sultan Yahya Petra and Tengku Anis Tengku Abdul Hamid.

He was only 42, when he was proclaimed Ruler of Kelantan in September 2010, succeeding his father who is incapacitated after suffering a stroke.

Sultan Muhammad would be the second Kelantan ruler to ascend to the throne.

The late Sultan Yahya Petra Ibni Almarhum Sultan Ibrahim Petra and grandfather of Sultan Muhammad, was the sixth King from 1975 to 1979.

Sultan Muhammad was known as Malaysia’s “last bachelor crown prince” when he married Tengku Zubaidah Tengku Norudin from Pattani, Thailand, in a glittering wedding in 2004. However, the marriage ended in divorce.

The tall and distinguished-looking Sultan Nazrin is an accomplished royal and a PhD-holder who graduated from Oxford University and Harvard University.

Read more @ http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/10/15/youngest-ruler-selected-sultan-muhammad-to-be-15th-king-sultan-nazrin-named-deputy/

Controversy surrounding NSC Act

Thursday, September 1st, 2016

Despite his general duty to act on advice, the King retains some discretionary powers.

TUN Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s criticisms of the National Security Council Act 2016 (NSC Act) received widespread media coverage last week. Some of his comments go far beyond the NSC Act and raise monumental issues of constitutional law.

Bypassing the King: Tun expressed remorse that in 1983, 1984 and 1993 his Government amended Article 66 of the Federal Constitution to curtail the powers of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in the legislative process. The amendments enable Parliament to bypass His Majesty if he does not consent to a Bill 30 days after presentation to him.

As a comment it can be stated that the diminution of the legislative role of the King by amendments to Article 66 did not confer legislative supremacy on the Houses of Parliament. There are still substantive as well as procedural limits on the powers of Parliament.

For example, there are four areas in which a Bill cannot become law without the consent of authorities outside Parliament.

> Altering the boundaries of a State. This requires the consent of the State Assembly and the Conference of Rulers: Article 2(b).

> If any law impinges directly on the rights or dignities of the State Rulers, its passage requires the consent of the Conference of Rulers: Article 38(4).

> There are nine topics in Article 159(5) that require a special two-thirds majority in both Houses plus the consent of the Conference of Rulers. These areas are: freedom of speech in relation to some “sensitive issues”; citizenship rights; position of the Rulers; applicability of the law of sedition to legislative proceedings; precedence of Rulers; Malay Rulers’ right of succession; Malay language; special position of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak; procedure for amending the Constitution under Article 159(5).

> Any law that affects the special position of Sabah and Sarawak requires a two-thirds parliamentary majority plus the consent of the Yang di-Pertua Negeri: Article 161E

by SHAD SALEEM FARUQI

Read more @ http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/reflecting-on-the-law/2016/09/01/controversy-surrounding-nsc-act-despite-his-general-duty-to-act-on-advice-the-king-retains-some-disc/

A precedent but no blanket pass

Thursday, June 23rd, 2016

Article 66 (4A) permits the King to be bypassed but cannot apply to other institutions and agencies with constitutional role in law-making.

FOR the first time in the history of our Constitution, a Bill became law without the consent of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. This was when the National Security Council Act 2016 (NSC Act), passed by the two Houses last December, was gazetted on June 7 without royal assent.

This draws attention to the complex constitutional procedures for enacting laws and specifically to Article 66 (4A), which permits the Government to bypass the King.

Bypassing the King: Under Article, 44 Parliament consists of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara. In normal circumstances, royal assent is needed for a Bill to become law.

However, in the event that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong refuses or delays assent, Article 66 (4A) provides that the Bill shall become law 30 days after it is presented to the King.

Chequered history: The Merdeka Constitution imposed no time limit for signifying royal assent but in August 1983, a Constitution Amendment Bill sought to insert a new Clause to provide that “if for any reason whatsoever the Bill is not assented to within 15 days of the Bill being presented to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, he shall be deemed to have assented to the Bill and the Bill shall accordingly become law”.

The Constitution (Amendment) Act 1983 applied this 15-day time limit to State Rulers as well. The Conference of Rulers, acting under Article 38 (4) and 159 (5), vetoed this Bill. A constitutional crisis ensued. After four months of negotiations, a compromise was worked out between the Government and the royal houses.

The Constitution (Amendment) Act 1984 provided a multi-tiered procedure for enabling the King to object to a Bill but for the Government to ultimately bypass the King in the legislative process.

• The King was granted 30 days to consider a Bill that was presented to him.

• His Majesty was given a right to return the Bill to the House where it originated from with written reasons for his objections.

• If the Houses of Parliament re-enacted the Bill a second time, the Bill would be returned to His Majesty for royal assent.

• His Majesty could delay the Bill for a second 30-day period.

• If he still refused to give his assent, the Bill would be deemed to become law.

• The provision about bypassing State Rulers was abandoned.

For reasons unknown, the 1984 Amendment Act survived only 10 years. By the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1994, Article 66 was amended for a third time in 10 years. The provisions for the King to send his written objections to Parliament; for Parliament to re-enact the Bill; and for the King to have a second 30-day delay period were repealed. The bypassing procedures were extended to State Sultans.

The 1994 amendment to Article 66(4A) allows the King and the State Sultans only 30 days to give royal assent, after which the measure becomes law.

Inapplicability of 66 (4A): It is generally believed that the effect of Article 66 (4A) is that since 1994, the Government and the two Houses of Parliament can enact any Bill into law by gazetting it 30 days after presenting it to the King. This view is mistaken. Article 66 (4A) permits the King to be bypassed. But the Article cannot apply to other institutions and agencies that have a constitutional role in the nation’s law-making process.

Conference of Rulers: The Conference is an essential component of the amending process in respect of those amendments specified in Article 159 (5). The Conference has been conferred the momentous power to block amendments to nine key provisions of the basic charter.

by SHAD SALEEM FARUGI.

Read more @ http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/reflecting-on-the-law/2016/06/23/a-precedent-but-no-blanket-pass-article-66-4a-permits-the-king-to-be-bypassed-but-cannot-apply-to-ot/

The rules of royal succession

Thursday, May 26th, 2016

The Federal Constitution provides the basis for choosing the King’s successor, aided by a rich tapestry of constitutional conventions or practices.

THE five-year reign of our fourteenth Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah, the Sultan of Kedah, is coming to a close on Dec 12 this year. His Majesty was also our fifth Yang di-Pertuan Agong from Sept 21, 1970 to Sept 20, 1975 and has the unique distinction of being the first and only reigning Sultan to be elected by his brother Rulers to ascend the federal throne twice.

Who will succeed His Majesty in December? Under the Federal Constitution, Articles 32, 38(2) and the Third Schedule provide the basic rules relating to succession but these have become inlaid with a rich tapestry of constitutional conventions or practices.

Conference of Rulers: Under Malaysia’s unique system of elective monarchy at the federal level, the King is elected by the Conference of Rulers.

For the purpose of the sovereign’s election, the Conference consists only of his brother Rulers from the nine Malay states. The Governors of Malacca, Penang, Sabah and Sarawak take no part in the election nor are they eligible to contest.

Rotation: Unlike the bloody “Wars of the Roses” fought over the English throne, the nine Malay monarchs have developed a civilised though complex system of sharing the federal throne.

They take turns in such a way that every Ruler who is willing and deemed suitable by the Conference can occupy the federal throne at least once before another Sultan occupies it twice. For this reason no King can be immediately re-elected after expiry of his five-year term.

The first cycle of occupying the federal throne was completed with the election of the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, as the ninth Yang di-Pertuan Agong from 1989 to 1994.

The list is as follows: Negri Sembilan (August 31, 1957 – April 1, 1960); Selangor (April 14, 1960 – September 1, 1960); Perlis (September 21, 1960 – September 20, 1965); Trengganu (September 21, 1965 – September 20, 1970); Kedah (September 21, 1970 – September 20, 1975); Kelantan (September 21, 1975 – March 30, 1979); Pahang (April 26, 1979 – April 25,1984); Johor (April 26, 1984 – April 25,1989); Perak (April 26, 1989 –5 April 25, 1994).

The second cycle commenced in 1994 with the selection of the Negri Sembilan Ruler, Tuanku Ja’afar, whose father Tuanku Abdul Rahman was the country’s first federal monarch. Negri Sembilan (April 26, 1994 – April 25, 1999) was followed by Selangor (April 26, 1999 – November 21, 2001); Perlis (December 13, 2001 – December 12, 2006); Trengganu (December 13, 2006 – December 12, 2011) and Kedah (December 13, 2011 to now).

by Shad Faruqi

Read more @ http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/reflecting-on-the-law/2016/05/26/the-rules-of-royal-succession-the-federal-constitution-provides-the-basis-for-choosing-the-kings-suc/

Defend our institutions

Tuesday, May 10th, 2016

Our founding fathers had the wisdom to choose a system that respects individual liberty, and chose liberal parliamentary democracy over illiberal autocracy.

THE existence and functioning of institutions are important for any democracy to flourish. The concept of “institutions” is an important one to understand.

In the academic circle, the definition of institutions has been debated by many scholars. One of the most commonly cited opinions belongs to Douglass North, a Nobel Laureate who published a seminal paper in the early 1990s defining institutions as “the formal and informal rules that organise social, political and economic relations”.

Since then, several other scholars have examined North’s work and provided further clarifications of the meaning of institutions. For example, Geoffrey Hodgson of the University of Hertfordshire builds on North’s definition by suggesting that institutions are “the systems of established and prevalent social rules that structure social interactions”.

Without going too much into the scholarly debates, it can be understood that when we talk about institutions, we are not necessarily just talking about physical entities. Instead, we are referring to rules and systems that may or may not be physical in nature.

For example, in a functioning democracy the institutions can include things like the Constitution, the Executive, Parliament as the legislative body, a free press, independent judiciary, consistent application of the laws, presence of check and balance mechanisms, respect for fundamental liberties, and more.

The institution can be an organisation, or it can be a concept. But regardless of its form, it structures how we deal with one another, how we deal with power, and how power deals with us.

When our country was formed, our founding fathers had the wisdom to choose a system that respects individual liberty. They chose liberal parliamentary democracy over illiberal autocracy.

A liberal parliamentary democracy is a system where the people can choose. In its simplest sense, democracy is rule by the people through elected representatives.

An illiberal autocracy is a system where people cannot choose. In its simplest sense, autocracy is dictatorship by one person or one group who holds a grip over the population.

Acknowledging that this nation has a history of autocracy in the form of absolute monarchies, when the Constitution was drafted, our Rulers had the wisdom to go for a constitutional monarchy. Our Rulers approved the vision of having a country founded upon the principles of liberty and justice, and their Royal Highnesses did not call for the return of rule by monarchs.

It is that wisdom that enabled us to gradually evolve into the modern society that we have today.

Britain has what is perhaps the most famous constitutional monarchy that exists today. It is amazing to see how the Queen functions in modern Britain. She never makes comments that can be construed as partisan in nature, she does not contradict the elected government.

Throughout her reign, the Queen has successfully adapted to the changing times, while always respecting the separation of roles between the monarch and the elected government.

by WAN SAIFUL WAN JAN.

Read more @ http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/thinking-liberally/2016/05/10/defend-our-institutions-our-founding-fathers-had-the-wisdom-to-choose-a-system-that-respects-individ/

Sultan wants power to okay Bills restored

Sunday, May 8th, 2016


Johor: The Sultan of Johor, Sultan Ibrahim Almarhum Sultan Iskandar (pic), on Saturday called for an amendment to the Federal Constitution to restore the powers of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or Rulers to examine and approve bills.

He said this was necessary because it was not appropriate for these powers to be restricted or eliminated.

Sultan Ibrahim said the existing legislation regarded the role of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or Rulers as a rubber stamp to affix the seal to the bill approved by Parliament or a State Legislative Assembly.

“I know that this is true at the federal level and in several states, but not in Johor. I hope this matter can be rectified,” he said when opening the Conference of Parliamentary and State Assembly Speakers of Malaysia, here.

The Sultan made reference to Article 40(1A) and Article 66(4A) of the Federal Constitution.

Article 40 (1A) states: “In the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or federal law, where the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is to act in accordance with advice, on advice, or after considering advice, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall accept and act in accordance with such advice.”

Article 66(4A) states: “If a Bill is not assented to by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong within the time specified in Clause (4), it shall become law at the expiration of the time specified in that Clause in the like manner as if he had assented thereto.”

In May 1994, forty-four points, including three schedules, in the Federal Constitution were amended by way of a bill tabled in the Dewan Rakyat by then Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

The Tunku Mahkota of Johor, Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim, also attended the opening of Saturday’s event.

Also present were Johor Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin, Dewan Negara President Datuk S.A. Vigneswaran, Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia and Johor State Secretary Datuk Ismail Karim.

Sultan Ibrahim said a bill passed by the State Assembly can only take effect after it is approved by the Ruler and, as such, it is inevitable that the relationship among the Ruler, the Legislature and the Executive are complementary to one another in the formation of an efficient and effective state government administration.

He said the role of the Ruler in the affairs of the state is also important besides the roles of the Executive and the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly.

Read more @ http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news.cfm?NewsID=109532

Rulers feel some provisions of NSC Bill should be refined

Thursday, February 18th, 2016

Selangor Ruler Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah (left) converses with Selangor Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Azmin Ali at the 240th meeting of the Conference of Rulers at Istana Negara here Wednesday. – Bernama pic

Selangor Ruler Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah (left) converses with Selangor Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Azmin Ali at the 240th meeting of the Conference of Rulers at Istana Negara here Wednesday. – Bernama pic

KUALA LUMPUR: The Conference of Rulers is of the view that some provisions of the National Security Council Bill 2015 should be refined.

It expressed the opinion after Attorney General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali gave a briefing on the Bill at the 240th meeting of the Conference of Rulers at Istana Negara here Wednesday.

The Sultan of Selangor, as chairman of the meeting, will write to the Prime Minister on the matter, said the Keeper of the Rulers’ Seal Datuk Seri Syed Danial Syed Ahmad in a statement.

The Bill, which was passed by the Dewan Rakyat last Dec 3 and the Dewan Negara on Dec 22, provides special powers to the Operations Director and the security forces to control and coordinate national security operations.

Wednesday’s meeting was attended by all the Rulers except the Sultan of Pahang, who was represented by Tengku Mahkota Tengku Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah as the Regent of Pahang.

Read more @ http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/02/17/rulers-feel-some-provisions-of-nsc-bill-should-be-refined/