Civil society joint statement: 25st February 2009
A
Malaysian Position on Democratic Government and Constitutional Monarchy
We, the undersigned Malaysian civil society organizations and individual citizens express here our gravest concern on the Constitutional crisis in Perak – and potentially elsewhere – where parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy are threatened by defections of elected representatives and attempt to illegally sack the democratically-elected government. We hold the following principles and practices as self-evidently essential to the healthy functioning of parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy.
Voters are the only legitimate force to decide the parties represented in the Parliament or a State Legislative Assembly. If an elected representative resigns from the party s/he represented in election, voters must be given a chance to re-express their mandate. This can be done through the provisions for "recall elections" as in Canada where election can be held for a constituency if 40% of the registered voters in the last election sign petition to recall the representative for whatever reasons. Two ballots will be cast in such elections. If more than 50% of voters vote "yes" in the first ballot to recall the representative, then the top amongst candidates on the second ballot will be elected as the replacement.
Meanwhile, the current prohibition of resigned incumbents from re-running elections for the next five years, in Article 48(6) of the Federal Constitution and state constitutions, should also be repealed. To oust a government, a vote of no-confidence must be carried out on the floor of Parliament or State Legislative Assembly where debates and deliberation may take place. Whether or not permissible by the letter of law, audience with the Ruler or statutory declarations cannot be the substitute of a formal no-confidence vote. If an important government bill is defeated, which has the similar effect of a no-confidence vote, the speaker must allow the executive to table a motion of confidence to ascertain the intention of the Parliament/State Legislative Assembly, if it so wishes.
When a government seeks to dissolve the Parliament or State Legislative Assembly after suffering a vote of no-confidence or losing a vote of confidence, the Ruler or Governor should not withhold his consent unless in very justifiable exceptions. In the logic of parliamentary democracies, the legislative uses no-confidence vote to check the executive which may then counter-check the legislative by seeking a new mandate at the polls. Arbitrary withholding of the royal/gubernatorial consent therefore damages the balance in the system's separation of power. As Sultan Azlan Shah rightly argued, "under normal circumstances, it is taken for granted that the Yang diPertuan Agong would not withhold his consent to a request for the dissolution of Parliament.
His role is purely formal." Based on these principles, we hold that in Perak
1. As no vote of no-confidence has been passed by the Perak State Legislative Assembly, YAB Menteri Besar Mohd Nizar and his Executive Council are the only legitimate government of the State of Perak.
2. The appointment of the second state government is ultra-vires and the use of police and other state apparatus to protect this illegitimate state government hurt both parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy in Perak.
3. The dissolution of the Perak State Legislative Assembly and the conduct of a fresh election are the only constitutional, democratic and politically sensible way for Perak to come out of the deepening crisis.
We call upon all Malaysians to express support to the above position to affirm parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. We must work together so that good sense may prevail in the palace, amongst the political elites and the general public. Returning to democratic and constitutional principles is the only way out to ensure political stability and political will to stay focused and deal with the imminent economic recession.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
公民社会团体联合文告: 25st February 2009
马来西亚人民对于议会民主和君主立宪的立场 我们，签署这文告的大马的公民社会团体，欲借此声明表达我们对霹雳州宪政危机最深切的关注。那些跳巢的民选议员和使用非法途径解散民主选出的政府的举动，已经严重侵蚀我国的议会民主和君主立宪制度。 我们认为唯有坚持以下的原则和实践，才是良好的议会民主和君主立宪制度。 选民是唯一能够决定，在州议会或国会中代表他们的政党。如果一个民选的议员要从他或她的政党中辞职，选民应该有机会重新表达他们的委托。这可以透过要求选举的规定，例如在加拿大，只要有40%的上届合法选民联名签署提出要求，就可以重新选举。选民在该选举中可以投两张票。如果第一张票，有超过50%的选民认为"可以撤换"该议员；那在第二张选票中得票最高的候选人，就会被宣布成为当选的议员。另一方面，目前在《联邦宪法》中，禁止辞职的议员在五年内不得重新参选的条文，也应该被废除。 要撤换民选政府的唯一途径，就是在国会或州议会中进行不信任动议的辩论和投票。无论是统治者会面的结果或者任何宣誓书，是不能取代正式的不信任动议投票。如果执政政府的一项重要议案在议会中被否决了，它也具有如投不信任票类似的效果，议长应该允许内阁（行政权）进行信任动议的辩论和投票。 当执政政府被投不信任动议获得通过后，或信任动议不被通过后，要解散国会或州议会时，统治者在一般的情况先是不会不御准，除非是有强而有理的理由。在议会民主的逻辑下，立法权用不信任动议来检验行政权，而行政则会通过重新选举寻求委托，制衡立法权的决定。皇室或统治者任意的不御准解散州议会，将会破坏三权分立的制度。苏丹阿兹兰莎曾表示，"在正常的情况下，最高元首是不会拒绝御准解散国会的要求。他的角色是中立的。" 谨以上述的原则，我们认为在霹雳州：
1. 既然没有在霹雳州议会中，通过不信任动议；那么拿督斯里尼查和他的行政议员，依然是唯一的合法政府。
2. 越权委任的第二任州政府，和动用警察及其他州机构来保护这非法的州政府，是严重破坏了霹雳州的议会民主和君主立宪制度
3. 解散霹雳州州议会和进行选举，是唯一可以让霹雳州走出宪法危机、符合民主和通情达理的方法。 我们呼吁所有的马来西亚人支持以上的声明，以捍卫议会民主和君主立宪制。
无论在政治精英和普罗大众之间，我们必须同心合力维护这议会民主和君主立宪制的精神。还政于民和符合宪法原则，是唯一保障政治稳定的方法和要专注处理逼近的经济衰退的政治意愿。
Signed by:
Alaigal
All Women’s Action Society (AWAM)
Citizen Think Tank
Civil Rights Committee of the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH - CRC)
Civil Society Initiative (CSI)
Coaliation Against Water Privatisation (CAWP)
Community Development Centre (CDC)
Jaringan Rakyat Tertindas (JERIT)
LLG Cultural Development Centre
Malaysia Youth and Students Democratic Movement (DEMA)
Monitoring Sustainability of Globalisation (MSN)
Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)
Persatuan Komunikasi Masyarakat (KOMAS)
Persatuan Masyarakat Selangor dan Wilayah Persekutuan (PERMAS)
Persatuan Sahabat Wanita, Selangor (PSWS)
Pertubuhan Jamaah Islah Malaysia (JIM)
Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
Tenaganita
Women's Aid Organisation (WAO)
Writers Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI)