OF all the functions of parliament – among them legislation, scrutinising government policies or debating current issues – one that is perhaps often neglected or under-appreciated is the duty to ensure the prime minister and the cabinet fulfil their constitutionality requirement.

Given that the prime minister of Malaysia must be a member of parliament (MP) who is able to command the confidence of the house, the prime minister’s rule must first rely on the confidence of the house and continually draw his support from the majority of MPs.

Therefore, the first and arguably most important duty for of parliament is to decide who rightly commands the confidence of the house. And until parliament is able to do that, it would not be able to function as a proper legislative body.

We were always led to believe that in a constitutional monarchy, the monarch’s approval is the final hurdle for a prime minister to either begin or continue office. While the appointment of the prime minister remains one of the few discretionary powers of the constitutional monarch, this power, however, is rightfully circumscribed by parliamentary arithmetic.

Therefore, it is to be said that the sovereign reigns but does not rule if we are to truly abide by the principles of constitutional monarchy. Then, this must also be true that the prime minister’s legitimacy – as long as parliament wills it – may not be challenged by the head of state.

For the prime minister, the test of his legitimacy takes place not in the palace but in parliament.

In the UK, the prime minister’s first hurdle is to convince parliament to pass the speech from the throne more commonly known as the Queen’s speech. The speech is a ceremonial event at the opening of each parliament session that provides the government with an opportunity to highlight its legislation priorities and the programmes that the prime minister intends to push forward in the coming year. 

The speech is to be written by the ministers and not to be construed as the monarch’s will as the monarch’s role is impartial and above politics . The monarch is merely delivering a speech on behalf of her government.

The Queen’s speech is crucial in the sense it is the first time the prime minister presents his governing agenda to parliament and like any legislation, it is subject to debate and the response of the leader of the opposition,

The Queen’s speech will end with a vote in the house and though that is seen as symbolic, it is still treated as a confidence vote for the prime minister like any budget bill. In this regard, the defeat of Malaysia’s very own Titah Agong, which exists in a similar vein, could be broadly construed as a defeat for the government of the day, too.     

For example, Conservative prime minister Stanley Baldwin, having lost an election in January 1924, stayed in office on account of his party being the largest party in parliament. He proceeded with the King’s speech to test his support in parliament, was duly defeated and subsequently resigned.

History has not been kind to Baldwin given that his 1924 electoral loss coupled with his hesitancy to immediately resign gave rise to the very first Labour government under Ramsay MacDonald. But Baldwin, nevertheless, understood the principles of the legitimacy of a prime minister should be decided in the realms of parliament.

Given that the opposition did not possess a working and stable majority and were undecided on who should be Baldwin’s replacement, Baldwin went for the high road and let parliament decide his political fate.   

There was a time the leaders of Malaysia understood this principle and this was best exemplified during the tenure of Malaysia’s third prime minister Hussein Onn. Hussein, having succeeded the premiership from his predecessor Abdul Razak Hussein, understood that in order for his premiership have legitimacy without a general election, it must be first confirmed by parliament, despite the verdict at the time that it was a mere formality.

Hussein convened an emergency meeting in parliament on January 26, 1976 – 11 days after his appointment – to call for a confidence vote. According to veteran parliamentarian Lim Kit Siang: “It was only after a vote of confidence in him as prime minister was passed by the Dewan Rakyat that parliament went on with its ordinary business…”

Therefore, having the total freedom and discretion for any member of parliament – be it opposition or government – to submit a confidence motion is absolutely crucial to the function of parliament.

If parliament cannot even confirm the prime minister’s legitimacy, what are the odds voters can expect parliament to stand up against the executive – which it is supposed to do in the first place.

Nevertheless, current speaker Azhar Azizan Harun’s surgical defence of the speaker having no say in expediting opposition’s confidence motion is the correct interpretation of the Standing Order – that certainly does not mean parliament is performing its subject role dutifully.

It only further exposes the fact that our parliament is a tool for the executive and the Standing Orders is the weapon the executive wields against parliament. I also have no doubt Azhar understood the defects of this parliament for he spoke of: “The position may not be acceptable to some, but that is the constraint that we live with, until that constraint is removed.”

Again, the blame is squarely at the feet of the reformist Pakatan Harapan that had promised to “restore the dignity of parliament” but had achieved very little. Until there is reform in parliament where confidence motions are given priority and may supersede government business, there is no hope for healthy competition in the house, where the MPs may decide who should govern Malaysia, once and for all.

And until such reform happens, we will be treated to the same spectacle whereby the hapless opposition leader keeps preaching he will be the next prime minister with callous disregard for other political institutions, while a square fight is avoided in parliament.

It happened in 2008, it is happening in 2020. What is the guarantee it won’t happen again in the future? – October 19, 2020.

* Kenneth Cheng has always been interested in the interplay between human rights and government but more importantly he is a father of two cats, Tangyuan and Toufu. When he is not attending to his feline matters, he is most likely reading books about politics and human rights or playing video games. He is a firm believer in the dictum “power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will”.