AG's logic on unnecesary confidence vote incorrect, says Upko

Nelson W. Angang

5 Sept 2021

By Wartawan Nabalu News

KOTA KINABALU: The United Progressive Kinabalu Organisation (UPKO) slammed Attorney-General Tan Sri Idrus Harun's statement saying that a vote of confidence in Parliament is not necessary as it would undermine the King's powers.

Its secretary-general Nelson W. Angang said it was Yang di-Pertuan Agong Al-Sultan Abdullah Billah Shah's decree that a vote of confidence must be brought to Parliament.

The Deputy Yang di-Pertuan Agong who was also in attendance emphasised that the vote must be the first item on the agenda before the Agong's opening decree and that all the leaders of the political parties who was in attendance was said to have agreed to this, he added.

"Therefore, if the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong has decree that a vote of confidence must be made, surely the Attorney General's view for such vote of confidence in Parliament would undermine the King's power cannot be correct.

"Secondly, to test or to prove the majority support against a Prime Minister can always be made through a motion of either vote of confidence or vote of no confidence in Parliament by the members of the house," he said in a statement today.

Nelson reasoned that there will never be a time that a motion of vote of confidence can be appropriately tabled in Parliament if going by the Idrus' reasoning.

"A vote of confidence cannot be said to be undermining the King's power to appoint a Prime Minister (who in the Agong's opinion is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Dewan Rakyat) because that power and discretion ceased to exist when a Prime Minister had been appointed and sworn in.

"With respect to the AG's view, his logic would not be the correct understanding and appreciation of the situation. As once the Prime Minister had been sworn in, the authority and tenure of his office had been legitimised and secured," he asserted.

As such, he stated that a motion of a vote of confidence (or no confidence) after a Prime Minister had been sworn in is legally a test on whether he still command the majority support on his 'leadership' as Prime Minister because the moment after he had been sworn in his decision-making and qualities as a leader would be scrutinised.

"The confidence and support by the members of the house could have changed after this and that it has nothing to do with undermining the power and discretion of the King.

"It is therefore based on these logic, that a motion of vote of confidence can and should be table in the coming Parliament sitting," he asserted."