Noorhayati binti Kardi

0727492
PSCI 1020: Introduction to Law and Government
Section: 2

The Constitutional Crisis in Perak

The constitutional crisis which happens in Perak has taken a popular place in media

for about a week. Until today, the crisis is still being discussed in court and since it involves

the Perak Constitution and the Sultan of Perak, the case has been forwarded to the Federal

Court of Malaysia for the legal proceedings. The crisis began in 4 February 2009 when four

assemblymen from Pakatan Rakyat who being the ruling party at that time were announced

defected and withdrawal from the party. One from them then joined the Barisan Nasional. It

then resulted that the Pakatan Rakyat lost it majority with overall 28 members. Barisan

Nasional 28 members and three other representatives were declared independent. The

independent representatives then were supporting the Barisan nasional and make them get the

majority to be the next ruling party.

As response to the conflict, the Sultan Perak, besides to dissolve the state assembly,

he used his discretion of power under Article 18(2)(b) of State Constitution, he rather

command the previous Chief Minister of Perak, Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin to tender the

resignation and the Sultan also choose the representative of Barisan Nasional, Datuk Dr.

Zambry Abdul Kadir to occupy the vacancy. The problem was that, in side of Mohammad

Nizar, he claimed that the action taken by the Sultan is unconstitutional and they should have

free election since we are practicing the democracy. Therefore he refused to resign and

brought the case to the court in trying to prove that the appointment of Dr. Zambry is null and

void. So, which of the side is true?

There have two previous statues which related to this issue. First case was the case of

Datuk Amir Kahar bin Tun Haji Mustapha v. Tun Mohammad Said bin Keruak & Ors[1994]
3 MLJ and second case was the case of Stephen Kalong Ningkan v. Tun Abang Haji Openg

& Tawi Sili[1966] 2 MLJ. In the case of Stephen Kalong Ningkan, the Governor of Sarawak

has received the letter which expresses the votes of no confidence on the plaintiff, therefore

the Governor in his discretion power under Article 6(3) of State Constitution command the

plaintiff to tender the resignation and the Governor has appointed the defendant to replace.

The Article 6(3) of State Constitution clearly stated that in this case the Governor has the

discretionary power either to dissolve the state assembly, make the fresh election or just

asking the Chief Minister to tender the resignation.

It then goes same with the conflict happen in Perak in which the Sultan has two

options in settling the conflict of lost confidence on the active chief minister. It is either

dissolve the state assembly or just change the Chief Minister. What happen was that the

Sultan choose not to dissolve the assembly but just change the Chief Minister and maybe due

to avoid the huge expenses if having the fresh elections. The action taken by the Sultan is

legally valid and certainly following the State Constitutions. He chooses the representative

from Barisan Nasional due the majority 28 members plus with three independent

representatives.

What makes it doubt is about the means of vote of no confidence among the assembly

members. In the previous case, the vote of no confidence was expressed by the letter signed

by the assemblymen but the recent case, the vote of no confidence was expressed through the

withdrawal of the members. Since in the constitution has no exact statement of means of vote

of no confidence, the action taken by the Sultan is certainly constitutional and valid while the

appointment of Dr. Zambry also valid. Legally, the Cief Minister of Perak is Dr, Zambry and

if following the constitution, the Mohammad Nizar must to tender the resignation.