PUTRAJAYA’S “quiet” revocation of the emergency ordinances merely proved the extent to which the Perikatan Nasional (PN) government is prepared to go to remain in power, analysts said.

They accused the government of taking the people for a ride and warned PN not to take the proclamation of emergency lightly.

De facto law minister Takiyuddin Hassan caught the House by surprise yesterday when he said the government had cancelled the ordinances that were passed during the emergency, effective July 21.

He said the government had also decided not to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to issue a new declaration when this one expires on August 1.

Universiti Sains Malaysia’s Prof Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid said many people are seeing the present government as being of questionable legitimacy on account of its dubious majority, currently threatened by Umno MPs’ flip-flopping between withdrawing their support or not.

“The government was prepared to take the rakyat for a ride by concealing a decision they had made in the corridors of power, although the decision (of whether an emergency situation was prevailing or not) was of utmost importance to the rakyat’s livelihood,” Fauzi said.

“Even if the revocation of the ordinances was meant to avoid a parliamentary vote, it still proves that the present government never conceived the emergency as a tool to fight Covid-19.

“If it had done so, it should’ve come up with recovery plans early on, in fact as soon as emergency was introduced.”

With the welfare of the rakyat being of less importance than political survival, small wonder that the government is struggling on all fronts in containing the pandemic, he added.

Former Aliran president Dr Francis Loh Kok Wah said it was ridiculous that the PN government revoked the emergency ordinances.

“Just like the PN government had proclaimed this emergency without the scrutiny of Parliament, it now ended it by bypassing Parliament a second time,” he said.

Loh said the rakyat would like their MPs to tell the PN government: “Do not play-play with proclaiming an emergency!”

He pointed out that an emergency was to be resorted to only when there occurred a serious threat to the safety and well-being of the nation and the rakyat, not that of the government of the day, particularly one that came to power through the back door.

Instead, he added, the wellbeing of the government of the day is a political matter. In a democracy worth its salt, such matters are resolved in Parliament or at the polls.  

“It appears that the PN government is afraid of Parliament, avoiding it like the pandemic, as though it knows that it will deliver a knockout blow there,” Loh said.

Echoing Loh, Dr Azmil Tayeb of USM said, “Quietly ending the ordinances is akin to admitting that the emergency has been a failure and the government simply wants to sweep it under the rug.

“It does not want to subject the emergency’s failure to scrutiny by the opposition, only to be exposed that it has been politically motivated all along.”

Professor Wong Chin Huat said as regards article 150(3) of the federal constitution, an emergency proclamation and emergency ordinances made outside Parliament need to be laid before both Houses for recognition or annulment.

The annulment of the ordinances, he added, changed nothing and was necessary for some proclamation without an end date.

“For this proclamation with a clear end date, an annulment would be only a political statement to say that it was wrong to have it in the first place, hence the government has no reason to annul it.

“It would happen only if the opposition has the majority and use that to show that the government has lost the plot,” said the professor at Jeffrey Cheah Institute on Southeast Asia, Sunway University.

Wong pointed out that the annulment of the emergency ordinances had a different implication.

“As per article 150(7), the emergency ordinances will continue to be in force for six months after the emergency ends unless annulled by the Parliament or ‘revoked earlier’.

“If the government insists to resist the annulment but lose it, it may raise questions about its majority and the government should then table a motion of confidence in itself to quash such doubt. If the government agrees to annul it, then nothing hurts its majority.

“Of course, if it agrees to end the EOs immediately after the end of emergency, it can ‘revoke’ it instead of allowing Parliament to ‘annul’ it, which is more negative.”

He added the real issue here is: Why was the revocation not formalised and announced following the cabinet’s decision to do so?

“Why keep it secret to create a drama? Is this a way to prevent the optimal use of the opposition’s time in this limited period of five days?

“If this was announced earlier, the entirety of Ngeh Koh Ham’s speech defending his motion would be unnecessary and Anwar Ibrahim could also spend more time of his speech on other matters,” said Wong.

Wong was referring to Speaker Azhar Azizan Harun rejecting requests from opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim and Beruas MP Ngeh Koo Ham to debate the emergency in the special sitting. – July 27, 2021.