By Gerard Lourdesamy
It is a known fact that the royal address to Parliament is written by the prime minister in consultation with the cabinet. The usual practice it seems is to form a cabinet committee for this purpose. After the draft is prepared the text is sent to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s private secretary for any comment and minor amendments.
In essence it is a policy speech of the government which outlines the legislative programme for the coming parliamentary year.
As a constitutional monarch he cannot publically express his views on these matters as he is bound by convention. Although, in private, his views may be made known to the prime minister during their weekly audience but at the end of the day the King must defer to the advice of the elected government.
It is wrong to imply that the speech is actually personal to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. To argue otherwise is untenable.
If the royal address was personal to the Sovereign as claimed by some government supporters, the Standing Orders of the House would not provide for a debate that can take between 7 to 10 days on the motion of thanks for the royal address.
This is a major policy debate in the House because if the government is defeated on the motion of thanks for the gracious speech it amounts to a vote of no confidence and by convention the prime minister must tender the resignation of the cabinet and advise for the calling of an early general election.
In fact the Standing Orders do not permit the House to debate on matters that are personal to the Rulers such as their conduct.
If the government as in this case decided to pepper the gracious speech with overtly political statements such as praise of the current leadership, extolling his supposed virtues and urging support for his administration until we achieve developed nation status, which in my opinion was a gross abuse of a great parliamentary occasion, the government should expect the Opposition to react negatively.
When comparisons are made with Westminster, as our Speaker has done, no British government in recent times has abused the occasion by preparing a partisan speech to be delivered by the Queen which such clear and obvious political undertones.
Queen Elizabeth’s private secretary would have been the first to alert the prime minister to the offending passages that if not removed would seriously weaken and undermine the integrity and impartiality of the great office of the Sovereign. No British prime minister would dare to put the Queen in such a difficult position given the entrenched Constitutional conventions and respect for tradition in that country.
Regrettably, in Malaysia such caution and astuteness is absent among members of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s private office and the royal Household whose primary duty should be to protect the ruler from all forms of political chicanery. A responsible government, even if weak and universally loathed, should not write speeches that are overtly political in order to defend itself and preserve its hold on power.
The Speaker should not act smarter than he already is by making ill-advised comments. The Opposition at no time called the royal address as Najib Razak’s speech although the reality is that it was written by the prime minister. Neither did they allege that the King was a puppet of the government or that he is a liar. The Opposition know better than that given that they want to replace the current government at the next general elections.
The King was merely there to read a speech written by the government that unfortunately contained inappropriate passages that were clearly political in nature. The Opposition have a constitutional right and duty to object to the contents of the royal address since it is a policy speech. Similarly, they have a right whether to accept the advice or endorsement contained in the speech.
This is all part and parcel of democracy and it would be an abdication of their parliamentary duty if the Opposition did not comment, criticise and condemn the government on the contents of the speech during the debate on the motion of thanks.
If the Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia wants to be more civilized than what our politicians are capable of in the Dewan Rakyat, he should resign and become the chairperson of some BN dominated social club. But do not make comparisons with Westminster, when you as the Speaker have repeatedly failed or compromised on your duty to act fairly and impartially, to protect the interests of the minority in the House and to defend the rights and privileges of Parliament from executive encroachment.
Gerard Lourdesamy has been a practicing lawyer for the last 23 years.
With a firm belief in freedom of expression and without prejudice, FMT tries its best to share reliable content from third parties. Such articles are strictly the writer’s personal opinion. FMT does not necessarily endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider.