Hanya 19 peratus responden dalam tinjauan oleh Institut Darul Ehsan (IDE) yang berpendapat bahawa Muhyiddin Yassin sepatutnya kekal sebagai perdana menteri sehingga tempoh Parlimen berakhir.
Hampir separuh (46 peratus) responden berkata Muhyiddin harus mengundurkan diri kerana dia tidak lagi menikmati sokongan majoriti sementara 29 peratus pula berkata, pilihan raya umum baru harus diadakan segera.
Dua peratus lagi berkata, bahawa Muhyiddin perlu meneruskan perisytiharaan darurat untuk terus berkuasa. Dapatan tinjauan itu dinyatakan dalam laporan "Mood Rakyat Malaysia Siri 1" IDE yang diterbitkan hari ini.
IDE mendakwa bahawa tinjauan dijalankan dalam talian antara 19 Februari dan 28 Februari, bertepatan dengan ulang tahun pertama “Langkah Sheraton" yang menyaksikan kejatuhan kerajaan Pakatan Harapan.
Ketika dihubungi, pengurus kanan bahagian penyelidikan IDE, Khairul Arifin Mohd Munir berkata, 8,352 sampel berkenaan diperoleh secara dalam talian melalui kaedah pensampelan pelbagai peringkat.
Tahap pertama persampelan bertujuan untuk memastikan bahawa responden mampu menjawab soalan diikuti dengan pensampelan berstrata rawak dan akhirnya persampelan kuota untuk mewakili setiap wilayah dan subkelompok.
Dalam perbincangan secara maya, dapatan tinjauan berkenaan, Khairul Arifin berkata, perincian persampelan akan didedahkan pada kemudian hari oleh Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif IDE, Mohammad Redzuan Othman.
Institut Darul Ehsan adalah badan pemikir yang dibiayai oleh kerajaan negeri Selangor yang ditubuhkan pada tahun 2015.
Tinjauan itu mendapati bahawa semua kumpulan etnik utama menyokong supaya Muhyiddin mengundurkan diri, walaupun kaum Cina lebih cenderung memilih supaya pilihan raya baru diadakan. (21 peratus).
Peratusan responden Melayu yang memilih supaya Muhyiddin kekal sehingga tempoh parlimen berakhir adalah lebih tinggi (22 peratus) berbanding kumpulan etnik lain. - mk
Din kelentong yang darurat
takdak kaitan politik...
Perisytiharan darurat sama sekali tiada kaitan dengan politik atau untuk membolehkan Muhyiddin Yassin mengekalkan jawatan sebagai perdana menteri, sebaliknya langkah itu bagi membolehkan isu Covid-19 diuruskan secara berkesan dan segera.
Jadi, saya sebutkan ini bukan makna darurat itu untuk darurat supaya saya boleh duduk lama jadi perdana menteri, saya pun tak tahu parti mana sekarang yang mempunyai jumlah kerusi lebih besar daripada saya, dulu adalah contoh (cubaan) nak tunjukkan, tapi tak terbukti. - fmt
Kalau Din ada sokongan besar, tidak perlulah dia takut untuk adakan semula sidang Parlimen dan benarkan undi percaya atau tidak percaya terhadapnya. Dengan membenarkan sidang Parlimen serta undi percaya atau tidak percaya dapatlah dia tahu parti mana yang mempunyai jumlah kerusi lebih besar daripada dia.
Tak payah susah-susah beli MP atau kumpul SD. Tak perlu buat macam-macam tipu-helah dan angkara yang menyusahkan rakyat jelata dan menjatuhkan imej negara di mata dunia. Hari ini, kalau ikut standard demokrasi Malaysia setaraf dengan Burma. Sama-sama rampas kuasa. - akj
Can two party-hoppers
save Din after June 29?...
The hopping of Tebrau MP Steven Choong and Julau MP Larry Sng looks like Muhyiddin Yassin’s own present for the first anniversary of his government. That just technically restores Muhyiddin’s majority to 112* as before yesterday he had only 110 votes in the House, after the official exit of Machang MP Ahmad Jazlan and Padang Rengas MP Nazri Aziz on Jan 9 and 11.[Editor's note: This figure includes Gua Musang MP Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah.]
However, the main threat to Muhyiddin’s survival is not Pakatan Harapan, (whose number of MPs drops from 91 to 89) or Harapan Plus (from 108 to 106). His main threat is Umno's remaining 36 seats counted as his fragile majority. Muhyiddin can work to get more hoppers from Harapan, Warisan or PSB, but how many can he get to fill the void if Umno pulls out?
Despite his shaky majority since last March 1, Muhyiddin has survived for one simple reason. There has only been a negative majority against him, not a positive majority for his successor. Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Anwar Ibrahim and Shafie Apdal have all failed to gather a positive majority of 112 to force Muhyiddin to resign or seek an election.
Anwar, whose repeated claims of having the number, simply cannot do a Musa Aman, who lined up the 33 assemblypersons (out of the total of 65) in his camp holding a number card like farm animals in an auction on last 30 July. Musa made it unequivocal that he commanded a new positive majority, leaving the then chief minister Shafie no choice but to seek resolution. Friendly governor Juhar Mahiruddin also had no choice but to consent to it. In institutional term, Musa demonstrated his ability to pass a “constructive vote of no-confidence”, a majority that both ousts the incumbent and installs a replacement.
Anwar could only claim to have the number of MPs based on their statutory declarations in support of him, but could not reveal the names, because he only had a negative majority against Muhyiddin, not a positive majority for himself. That anti-Muhyiddin negative majority might turn into a pro-Anwar positive majority, but only if the former could become a fait accompli, which might first need a royal blessing that Anwar simply could not get.
“Constructive vote of no-confidence” is a constitutional tool to ensure political stability, invented by Germany and now also adopted by eight other countries. In Germany, a vote of no-confidence against the incumbent chancellor in the Bundestag (Parliament) is also a vote of confidence for a new chancellor. In other words, if a government loses its majority (for example due to pulling out of a coalition partner), but the opposition cannot agree to elect a new majority government, then the government can stay on as a minority government.
The idea is to avoid a void without government or frequent changes of unsustainable governments. The Germans learned the lesson dearly during the Weimar Republic (1919-1933) which had 14 chancellors in 14 years, paving way for the rise of the Nazi.
Malaysia’s Federal Constitution require only a simple vote of no-confidence, meaning, a negative majority suffices. Article 43(4) is straightforward: “If the Prime Minister ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Houses of Representatives, then, unless at his request the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, dissolves the Parliament, the Prime Minister shall tender the resignation of the Cabinet.”
Before the Perak legislators’ coup in 2009, a Chief Executive can only lose his/her majority on the floor through a no-confidence vote (technically, including a rejection of the Royal/Governor’s Address) or rejection of budget, requiring only a negative majority.
With the submission of lawmakers’ statutory declaration emerging as the third way to oust a government post-Perak 2009, “the loss of confidence” (negative majority) is effectively interpreted as the emergence of a new positive majority, resulting in a “de facto” constructive vote of no confidence, which distinguishes the fates of Muhyiddin and Shafie.
It is clear to most people that the Emergency Ordinance 2021 is driven by politics, not pandemic. Most people only feel the presence of the movement control order, not of emergency. Its proclamation was upon prime-ministerial advice, not so much to save lives and livelihoods from Covid-19 but to save the life of Muhyiddin’s government from further machinations that its birth has inspired. Less clear to most people is that the real political goal of the Emergency proclamation is to stop parliamentary sitting, not to stop elections.
First, the federal election is completely optional now as its ultimate due date is Aug 16, 2023. While the Sarawak election is due this Aug 5, GPS is eager to have it, believing that it would perform better against Harapan.
Second, even (if) elections can be held now under strict SOPs, it would be greatly unpopular and voters tired of political bickering may just punish parties that trigger another election.
Third and most importantly, a snap poll cannot happen if either Muhyiddin does not request for it or the king does not consent to his request. As Bersatu would likely be annihilated in three-cornered fights against Umno and Harapan while PAS and GPS profit, why would Muhyiddin risk his top job unnecessarily?
So, the real motivation for the emergency is to avoid parliamentary sitting, which may allow a negative majority to emerge and oust Muhyiddin, even when Harapan and Umno cannot agree on the new prime minister.
Now, since the next budget is not to be voted before November, and Dewan Rakyat Speaker Azhar Harun has made it clear that no vote of no-confidence may take place without the government’s consent, what is there to fear?
One can only deduce, given today’s fluidly, Muhyiddin cannot trust all or some of the speaker and his two deputies to disallow any no-confidence ambush. Reasonably, he fears a replay of the ambush that finished his party deputy Ahmad Faisal Azumu’s career as Perak chief minister.
Is June 29 the new deadline? Nothing in Article 150 of the Federal Constitution dictates suspension of a parliamentary government under the emergency proclamation. Technically speaking, an emergency may go on while the prime minister is changed.
The Muhyiddin government’s lifeline seemingly lies in Section 11(a) of the Emergency Ordinance 2021 which stipulates the continuity of the existing prime minister and cabinet, but that is justified only by Section 14(1)(a) which suspends the constitutional provisions on the summoning, proroguing and dissolution of the Parliament.
With the king’s unusual statement that the Parliament may convene during an emergency, it would be politically not viable for the Parliament not to be convened latest by 29 June, an exact six-month gap from Dec 29, 2020, when Dewan Negara (as part of the Parliament) was last adjourned.
Article 55(1) stipulates that the king “shall not allow six months to elapse between the last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first meeting in the next session”. When the Parliament reconvenes on June 29 (Tuesday) or earlier, can Muhyiddin trust the speaker and his deputies to always rule out a simple vote of no-confidence?
I will not be surprised that Muhyiddin gets more MPs from Harapan, Warisan or PSB in the next few days or weeks, but the question remains: how many MPs to fill the void if Umno decides to bring him down on the parliamentary floor? - Wong Chin Huat
Nurul Izzah, PKR did not
Permatang Pauh MP Nurul Izzah Anwar and PKR did not defame National Feedlot Corporation (NFCorp) and its chairperson, the Federal Court in Putrajaya ruled today. In a unanimous verdict, the three-person apex court dismissed the appeal by NFCorp and Mohamad Salleh Ismail. The court also ordered the company and Salleh to pay RM50,000 in cost to Nurul Izzah and PKR.
They filed a suit against the PKR lawmaker and the political party for defamation over a press conference she held at Parliament in 2012. It involved an allegation that RM71.4 million of government funds for the feedlot project were used as leverage to purchase condominium units in KL Eco City.
On March 4, 2016, the Kuala Lumpur High Court dismissed the defamation suit, ruling that the defendants succeeded in their defence of justification over the statement. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision on July 10, 2017. On March 8, 2018, the Federal Court granted leave to NFCorp and Salleh to proceed with their appeal.
The apex bench was chaired by Federal Court judge Mohd Zawawi Mohd Salleh Zawawi. The other judges were Hasnah Mohammed Hashim and Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal. In reading out the unanimous verdict, Harmindar said Nurul Izzah and PKR have succeeded in relying on the defence of justification.
He noted that NFCorp and Salleh failed to dispel the assertion that the RM71.4 million public funds held in fixed deposit at Public Bank played a part in the bank’s loan facilities for the purchase of eight units of property at KL Eco City at the present market value of RM12 million.
The judge was referring to the appellants’ contention that it was misleading to state that the fixed deposit account was used as collateral or leverage to secure the loan facilities to purchase the eight property units.
NFCorp chairperson Mohamad Salleh Ismail
“With respect, the overwhelming inference from what transpired at the trial is that this cannot be true. It is certainly not a coincidence that the loan facilities came from the same bank where the RM71.4 million deposit was placed. “It is common knowledge that banks will not simply offer loans unless they are satisfied that the customer seeking the loans is in a position to repay them. “If it is true that the banks only require the security of the titles for loans to be provided, then anyone who buys property would ipso facto be granted a bank loan,” he said.
It was, therefore, a matter of some significance that when challenged to do so, the First Appellant (Salleh) failed to disclose his sources of income to finance the purchase of the eight units of condominiums apart from making bare assertions as duly noted by the High Court judge, he added.
“Considering the possible damaging inferences that may arise from the RM71.4 million deposit, the First Appellant ought to have called someone from Public Bank to support his claims. “It was therefore plain on the evidence that the appellants had used the RM71.4 million deposit as leverage for obtaining the loans from Public Bank.
“The fact that the loan offer had expired is of little consequence. In fact, it would not be farfetched to deduce, from the entirety of the evidence at the trial, and in the sense, as noted above, that there has been misuse of public funds for personal gain,” Harmindar said.
He added that the courts below were also correct in concluding the impugned 2012 statement has not defamed NFCorp and Salleh on the whole. He said the ordinary reasonable reader would not have arrived at the conclusion that the statement, upon being read in its entirety, was defamatory against the two appellants.
Harmindar noted that a reasonable reader would not pay any attention to a single sentence in the very lengthy impugned statement, which formed the crux of the entire defamation action in the first place. He said this is because such a reasonable reader would only be focused on the major part of the statement, which concerned Salleh’s wife Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, the then women, family and community development minister.
“That was the main sting, which, because of its focus ameliorated, the effect of the subject matter of complaint was, in effect, that one sentence. “It was meant to only be a precursor or introduction to the main sting in that it was the revelation by (then PKR lawmaker Mohd) Rafizi (Ramli) of the (allegation of) misuse of funds that led to the First Appellant (Salleh), raising new questions about the conflict of interest of Shahrizat in the purchase of the condominiums.
“No action has since been filed by Shahrizat in respect of these allegations although a suit was filed against Rafizi for the statements which he had made. “For these reasons, we would agree with the findings of the Court of Appeal and dismiss the appeal,” he said.
Counsel Muhammad Shafee Abdullah appeared for NFCorp and Salleh, while lawyer Razlan Hadri represented Nurul Izzah and PKR’s secretary-general Saifuddin Nasution. - mk