The Malaysian Insider
KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 5 — Legal experts disputed today the Selangor palace’s claim over executive power, declaring that it is the mentri besar — and not the Sultan — who is the state’s chief executive.
They claimed that in the Sultan’s role as the constitutional monarch, the Ruler should be viewed as a “figure of unity” and any attempt by him to wade into state administrative matters could be misconstrued as a political move.
Lawyer Chan Kok Keong said that the Sultan had no executive power and maintained that the mentri besar was the prime authority in any matter concerning the state administration.
Chan, who was one of the central figures during the 2009 Perak constitutional impasse, also pointed to provisions within the Federal Constitution to back his assertion that the Sultan could not act on issues such as the appointment of a state secretary without accepting the advice of the mentri besar.
“He does not also reserve the right to withhold his consent in such a case, only arguably in deciding on the dissolution of the state assembly, as it was in the Perak case.
“If he can withhold, then where is no need to stipulate that he must act on advice. The advice of the mentri besar must override any other advice given by any service commission,” he told The Malaysian Insider when contacted.
On this note, Umno lawyer Datuk Hafarizam Harun agreed that the palace’s claim yesterday that the Sultan held executive power would cause public alarm as citizens would take it to mean that Malaysia had become an “absolute monarchy”.
But he pointed out that the purpose of the statement, issued by Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah’s private secretary Datuk Mohamad Munir Bani, was to point out that the Ruler reserved the power to grant consent over the appointment of the state secretary.
The Selangor government is at loggerheads with the federal administration over the Public Services Department’s (PSD) selection of Datuk Mohd Khusrin Munawi as the state’s new secretary.
Despite the Sultan’s subsequent consent to the appointment and the impending loyalty oath-taking ceremony at the palace tomorrow, the Selangor government helmed by Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim has insisted on attempting to amend the state constitution by month’s end.
The amendment, which will empower the mentri besar to determine such appointments, requires a two-thirds majority from the House and the Pakatan Rakyat government has also claimed it will have a retrospective effect.
“There are two ways of viewing Munir’s statement. One, is through the eyes of the rakyat who will take it to mean that the Sultan has executive power and can decide on administrative matters,” Hafarizam said.
“Two, is from the viewpoint of the palace, and what they mean here is the Sultan’s power to grant consent or withhold it. Strictly speaking, however, executive power lies with the mentri besar but the Sultan’s power is whether he can consent to the appointment of one of the three names given to him for the state secretary post,” he added.
He noted, however, that the Sultan did not reserve the right to identify his own candidate for the post and had to rely on the names presented to him by the PSD.
“The MB can also propose the names, as the state’s chief executive officer, but ultimately, the Sultan gives the consent and decides on the final candidate.
“In a nutshell, the Sultan has the power to withhold consent to the appointment of the state’s top three officers — the state secretary, the state legal adviser and the state financial officer — but that does not mean he can come up with the names or act beyond his powers in the Selangor Constitution,” he said.
Law professor Dr Abdul Aziz Bari said, however, that Munir had been inaccurate in claiming the Sultan held executive power as while the Ruler commanded state authority in the Constitution, state power could only be exercised by elected representatives.
“This is important for they have to be made accountable to the people through their representatives in the House,” he said in a statement today.
Abdul Aziz said that the Ruler’s role was to provide check and balance and to remind the ruling administration not to use the public service for political interests.
In the ongoing Selangor saga, he said the Sultan had “gone too far” by allegedly asking the state government to put up with a candidate embroiled in many past controversies, some of which he claimed were clear examples of insubordination.
“While a government servant has no duty to be loyal to the sitting government, [he] has a duty to carry out government orders so long as these are all legal,” he said.
Perak DAP MP Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham, a lawyer by profession, said that the Sultan’s involvement in the matter only opened up avenues for public dissent against the Ruler.
“This is the reason why the Sultan should be a figure of unity and not be partisan or be seen as taking sides in the freedom to administer the state.
“We are now treading on a situation where the palace is trying to reassert executive powers and this is dangerous for once one makes a decision in a Federal or state administration, you are bound to get criticised,” he said.
He claimed that the Sultan’s role in granting consent or blessing the appointment was merely “symbolic” in nature.
Bar Council constitutional law committee chairman Edmund Bon agreed and said that in the state secretary issue, the Sultan’s role was “negligible”.
“If compared to his role in the dissolution of a state assembly, his role here is negligible. It is not in the Selangor Constitution that he can decide, yes or no, to these appointments but yet, he is taking an active role,” he said.
Bon also claimed that according to his interpretation of provisions in both the Selangor and Federal Constitutions, the power to appoint a candidate as the state secretary was vested in the Selangor State Service Commission and not the Public Service Commission (PSD).
“This is the primary issue here. Since the state commission has not made the appointment, then it can quickly act now.
“This is because we cannot find any law that extends the PSD’s jurisdiction in Selangor. We need to focus on these details and not political rhetoric,” he said, adding that this meant there was no need for the Selangor Constitution to be amended.
KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 5 — Legal experts disputed today the Selangor palace’s claim over executive power, declaring that it is the mentri besar — and not the Sultan — who is the state’s chief executive.
They claimed that in the Sultan’s role as the constitutional monarch, the Ruler should be viewed as a “figure of unity” and any attempt by him to wade into state administrative matters could be misconstrued as a political move.
Lawyer Chan Kok Keong said that the Sultan had no executive power and maintained that the mentri besar was the prime authority in any matter concerning the state administration.
Chan, who was one of the central figures during the 2009 Perak constitutional impasse, also pointed to provisions within the Federal Constitution to back his assertion that the Sultan could not act on issues such as the appointment of a state secretary without accepting the advice of the mentri besar.
“He does not also reserve the right to withhold his consent in such a case, only arguably in deciding on the dissolution of the state assembly, as it was in the Perak case.
“If he can withhold, then where is no need to stipulate that he must act on advice. The advice of the mentri besar must override any other advice given by any service commission,” he told The Malaysian Insider when contacted.
On this note, Umno lawyer Datuk Hafarizam Harun agreed that the palace’s claim yesterday that the Sultan held executive power would cause public alarm as citizens would take it to mean that Malaysia had become an “absolute monarchy”.
But he pointed out that the purpose of the statement, issued by Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah’s private secretary Datuk Mohamad Munir Bani, was to point out that the Ruler reserved the power to grant consent over the appointment of the state secretary.
The Selangor government is at loggerheads with the federal administration over the Public Services Department’s (PSD) selection of Datuk Mohd Khusrin Munawi as the state’s new secretary.
Despite the Sultan’s subsequent consent to the appointment and the impending loyalty oath-taking ceremony at the palace tomorrow, the Selangor government helmed by Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim has insisted on attempting to amend the state constitution by month’s end.
The amendment, which will empower the mentri besar to determine such appointments, requires a two-thirds majority from the House and the Pakatan Rakyat government has also claimed it will have a retrospective effect.
“There are two ways of viewing Munir’s statement. One, is through the eyes of the rakyat who will take it to mean that the Sultan has executive power and can decide on administrative matters,” Hafarizam said.
“Two, is from the viewpoint of the palace, and what they mean here is the Sultan’s power to grant consent or withhold it. Strictly speaking, however, executive power lies with the mentri besar but the Sultan’s power is whether he can consent to the appointment of one of the three names given to him for the state secretary post,” he added.
He noted, however, that the Sultan did not reserve the right to identify his own candidate for the post and had to rely on the names presented to him by the PSD.
“The MB can also propose the names, as the state’s chief executive officer, but ultimately, the Sultan gives the consent and decides on the final candidate.
“In a nutshell, the Sultan has the power to withhold consent to the appointment of the state’s top three officers — the state secretary, the state legal adviser and the state financial officer — but that does not mean he can come up with the names or act beyond his powers in the Selangor Constitution,” he said.
Law professor Dr Abdul Aziz Bari said, however, that Munir had been inaccurate in claiming the Sultan held executive power as while the Ruler commanded state authority in the Constitution, state power could only be exercised by elected representatives.
“This is important for they have to be made accountable to the people through their representatives in the House,” he said in a statement today.
Abdul Aziz said that the Ruler’s role was to provide check and balance and to remind the ruling administration not to use the public service for political interests.
In the ongoing Selangor saga, he said the Sultan had “gone too far” by allegedly asking the state government to put up with a candidate embroiled in many past controversies, some of which he claimed were clear examples of insubordination.
“While a government servant has no duty to be loyal to the sitting government, [he] has a duty to carry out government orders so long as these are all legal,” he said.
Perak DAP MP Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham, a lawyer by profession, said that the Sultan’s involvement in the matter only opened up avenues for public dissent against the Ruler.
“This is the reason why the Sultan should be a figure of unity and not be partisan or be seen as taking sides in the freedom to administer the state.
“We are now treading on a situation where the palace is trying to reassert executive powers and this is dangerous for once one makes a decision in a Federal or state administration, you are bound to get criticised,” he said.
He claimed that the Sultan’s role in granting consent or blessing the appointment was merely “symbolic” in nature.
Bar Council constitutional law committee chairman Edmund Bon agreed and said that in the state secretary issue, the Sultan’s role was “negligible”.
“If compared to his role in the dissolution of a state assembly, his role here is negligible. It is not in the Selangor Constitution that he can decide, yes or no, to these appointments but yet, he is taking an active role,” he said.
Bon also claimed that according to his interpretation of provisions in both the Selangor and Federal Constitutions, the power to appoint a candidate as the state secretary was vested in the Selangor State Service Commission and not the Public Service Commission (PSD).
“This is the primary issue here. Since the state commission has not made the appointment, then it can quickly act now.
“This is because we cannot find any law that extends the PSD’s jurisdiction in Selangor. We need to focus on these details and not political rhetoric,” he said, adding that this meant there was no need for the Selangor Constitution to be amended.
No comments:
Post a Comment