Agong’s power not weakened with confidence vote requirement, says group

Project Sama says unless the government is willing to give way, a motion of no-confidence can never be debated. (Bernama pic)

PETALING JAYA: A clause requiring the prime minister to obtain the confidence of his peers in the Dewan Rakyat under a new law to ensure a stable government will not undermine the powers of the Yang di-Pertuang Agong, a reforms NGO said.

Projek Sama was responding to former speaker Azhar Azizan Harun’s comments that a mandatory “confirmatory vote of confidence” is unconstitutional because the Agong has the power to appoint the prime minister.

The group had previously proposed that a Fixed-term Parliamentary Act (FTPA) include a vote of confidence provision, which would ensure that motions of confidence or no-confidence be expedited ahead of government business.

It said the provision would help rid the house of the “shadowy practice of collecting and counting of statutory declarations (SDs)”.

In a statement, Projek Sama said that currently, government matters take precedence over any confidence motion brought by backbenchers or opposition MPs, which it said is flawed.

It noted that Azhar admitted the speaker is also powerless to prioritise such a motion.

“Unless the government is willing to give way, a motion of no-confidence can never be debated. The power for MPs to unseat the sitting government in that sense is illusory.

“Regrettably, the standing orders committee, always chaired by the speaker, never amended the Dewan Rakyat standing orders to assign real power to the Dewan Rakyat to dismiss the government.

“The FTPA can fix this flaw by prioritising motions of confidence and no-confidence for all occasions, not limited to the appointment of a new prime minister,” it said.

Projek Sama also said two former prime ministers -Hussein Onn and Abdullah Ahmad Badawi – had allowed confidence motions in 1976 and 2003, respectively, adding that Anwar Ibrahim also allowed a vote after being sworn in in 2022.

“None of these three motions had the intent or effect of questioning the discretionary power of the Agong to pick a prime minister.

“Why should the same act become unconstitutional when it becomes a SOP?” it said.