Perak coup: ‘Court set dangerous precedent’

The apex court's ruling would allow a prime minister to be replaced by the King without going through a no-confidence motion in the Parliament, stated a leaked US cable.

KUALA LUMPUR: A 2010 Federal Court ruling in favour of Barisan Nasional’s takeover of Perak a year before not only renewed questions about the independence of the Malaysian judiciary, but also legitimised political manoeuvring to undermine democratic elections, noted US diplomats based in the US embassy here.

The court ruling which upheld a decision of the Sultan of Perak to appoint a new menteri besar has set a dangerous precedent by implying that the King, likewise, could remove the Prime Minister, without a no-confidence motion in Parliament, the diplomats added.

Their observations were made in a confidential cable sent to the US State Department in Washington. The cable was sent just days after the court’s ruling.

Details of the cable were leaked by WikiLeaks to popular blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin who had reproduced the cable in his Malaysia Today website today.

“A well-financed political coalition could persuade Members of Parliament to support the other side, shifting power through undemocratic means, as many allege (had) occurred in Perak.

“Before this Federal Court decision, the (State Legislative) Assembly would have instead been dissolved for fresh elections, but now the sultan can legitimise the takeover without voter input,” added the US cable.

It further noted that the Malaysian goverment’s argument was that the Federal Court decision was based on “a sound interpretation of the Perak constitution”.

“Opposition figures disagree and argue the decision legitimises political manoeuvring to change the results of democratic elections, setting a dangerous precedent by implying that the King could remove the Pime Minister, without a no-confidence motion in Parliament,” added the cable.

The cable also quoted Pakatan Rakyat’s Perak Menteri Besar Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin as saying that the ruling would result in “the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister holding office at the pleasure of the King or the Sultan”, and setting a dangerous precedent.

A political decision

The Federal Court’s unanimous 5-0 decision on Feb 9, 2009 stated that the Perak sultan had the authority to appoint a new menteri besar if he believed that a different political coalition commanded the allegiance of a majority of seats in the state assembly.

The ruling confirmed the sultan’s decision to consent to appointment of BN-Umno’s Zambry Abdul Kadir as the menteri besar to replace PAS’ Nizar.

The changeover in government followed the defection of three Pakatan representatives to become BN-friendly independents, thus allowing BN to have the strength in number to claim majority in the state assembly.

The cable also noted that Nizar’s lawyer Chan Kok Keong had expected such a decision, telling them that the outcome would not be a “constitutional decision” but rather “a political decision”.

The lawyer had even informed the US diplomats that the federal justices hearing the case “were extremely hostile” to them (Nizar’s lawyers).

The US cable pointed out the case effectively ended the Perak constitutional crisis.
It added that the sultan had come under unprecedented scrutiny because replacing a menteri besar was not specifically mentioned in the state constitution.