Politics from A Layman's Perspective

When it came to the Budget discussion, the Cabinet clumsily sought the King's help, a King whom it would repeatedly disappoint! On Budget Day, the cabinet had just 111 out of 220 votes in its favor (two MPs having died), well short of the absolute "majority" required by any prime minister for a budget. If you closely examine Art.43, you will see this. Supporters of the PN use Art. 62(3) to claim that a "simple majority" is sufficient. That may be true for regular legislation, but not for budget-related supply bills. Under my opinion, none of the three preconditions in Art. 150, which constituted a "grave danger" to the country, existed when the Cabinet proceeded to declare the Emergency. When the Cabinet could have used existing laws to combat the pandemic, such as properly enforcing the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988 (‘PCIDA'), or failing that, the National Security Council Act, the Cabinet chose to avoid doing so by turnin...

The Honourable Attorney General issued a Media Statement on June 25, 2021. Legal authorities are irritated by it. The Hon. AG claims that the King may only call Parliament on the Prime Minister's recommendation.  Section 14(1)(b) of the Emergency Ordinance 2021, in his view,  On its face, this implies that the King does not have exclusive authority over the day on which Parliament should be called to meet.  Two problems arise as a result of these two opposing viewpoints: one is a conflict, and the other is a constitutional impasse.  We'll start with the most pressing issue: the war.  Sec. 14(1) may now be interpreted in two distinct ways (b).  Please allow me to refresh your memories.  According to Section 14(1)(b),  ‘As long as the State of Emergency exists –... (a) The House of Commons shall be called, prorogued, and dissolved. on a date determined by the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong.' The Prime Minister is not mentioned in Section 14. However, the att...