Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
| GE13: A caretaker govt – what can it do? Posted: 27 Mar 2013 05:15 PM PDT
There is no provision for a caretaker government in the Malaysian Constitution. The notion of a caretaker government is essentially a parliamentary or constitutional convention. Datuk Dr Cyrus Das, The Star THERE is no reference to a caretaker government in the Federal Constitution. The concept of a caretaker government is a concept of the Westminster parliamentary system. It is practised in parliamentary democracies where the executive government is formed from the majority political party in the elected house of representatives. The notion of a caretaker government is essentially a parliamentary or constitutional convention. A caretaker government may broadly be described as an interim government that governs pending the outcome of a determining event. The determining event is invariably a general election that would elect a government that can govern with the confidence of the majority in Parliament. A caretaker government may arise generally in three circumstances: > The usual instance is where Parliament has been dissolved and a general election is called where a new government would be formed either from the ruling party or the opposition. > The other instance is where, following the results of the general election, the old government continues in a caretaker capacity until the new government is formed because of a hung parliament or the lack of a clear mandate in any political party. In such circumstances, political parties attempt to form alliances to create a coalition government. > The third instance is where the incumbent government is defeated on a confidence vote in parliament, and is permitted to continue in office until parliament is dissolved and a general election held. Malaysia In Malaysian parliamentary history, the first time the term "caretaker government" was used was in the first parliamentary election after Merdeka. It was held in August 1959 in the midst of a crisis in the Alliance coalition party which was the ruling party. The crisis was within the MCA, a component party of the Alliance, after a faction under Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu, the erstwhile president of the party, had broken off and was fielding candidates to stand as independents against MCA candidates led by Tun Tan Siew Sin. The then Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, as the leader of the Alliance coalition wished to devote full time to the general election and lead the campaign for his party. The Tunku therefore "retired" as Prime Minister for the duration of the three-month election period. He handed over the reins of government to his deputy, Tun Abdul Razak, who he said was to be a "full-fledged Prime Minister". This was affirmed by Razak himself, upon being sworn in as the country's second Prime Minister when he declared that the new government was not "acting as a caretaker government". This was reported in The Straits Echo on April 17, 1959 but there was never any doubt in the public mind or the media that it was a temporary arrangement and that Razak was "caretaker Prime Minister" holding the post for the Tunku until his return. The Razak government of three months in mid-1959 was strictly not a caretaker government in the constitutional sense. It was fundamentally a political strategy to use the Tunku's considerable popularity to advantage in the campaign. It was the innate decency of the Tunku that while engaged full time in party political work, he thought it improper that he should draw his income from the public funds as prime minister. Hence the "resignation" or "retirement" as he described it himself. The Malaysian experience, however, is not the best example of a caretaker government. There are two examples elsewhere which better explain the working of the concept. Britain The first is the (Sir Winston) Churchill wartime coalition government in Britain which comprised of members from both the Conservative and Labour Party. After the end of the War in mid-1945, the Labour Party under Clement Attlee withdrew from the coalition causing Churchill as Prime Minister to tender the resignation of his national government. The King, by parliamentary convention, commissioned Churchill to form a new government upon the understanding that he would request for the dissolution of parliament and hold a general election. The interim Churchill government was characterised by the national press as "a caretaker government" holding office until a new government was elected. As events went, the Labour Party under Attlee swept into power and formed the first post-War/elected government in Britain. Australia The other instance was in Australia in late 1975 upon the dismissal from office of the Whitlam Labour government. The failure of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam to obtain budget supply in the upper house led to a stalemate in government. The Governor General sought to dismiss the government from office by the exercise of his vice-regal reserve powers to break the deadlock since the Prime Minister was not prepared to tender advice to dissolve parliament. The Governor General questionably sought the advice of the then serving Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, who questionably tendered advice that upon the withdrawal of the commission of the Prime Minister he may call upon the Leader of the Opposition to form "a caretaker government" on his undertaking to secure supply. In the event, the Governor General in the exercise of his reserve powers revoked the commission of the Whitlam government and called upon the Leader of the Opposition, Malcom Fraser, to form a caretaker government upon his undertaking to recommend dissolution of parliament and submit the country to a general election. As events went, a Fraser government came into office after the general election. What a caretaker government can and cannot do The important question always is about what a caretaker government can or cannot do. It is axiomatic that as a caretaker government, it "holds the fort" pending the general election and may not make any decision of import, policy or otherwise, or any decision with grave financial implications, that binds the successor government. For example, in the Australian crisis of 1975, the Governor General in his official statement to the public on the formation of the interim government stated that the caretaker government could "make no appointments or dismissals and initiate no policies" until a general election is held. A view point is held that the restrictions on a caretaker government during elections should not merely be limited to a prohibition against the use of government apparatus and facilities or the government's publicity machine for electoral advantage. The view point for an enlarged restriction is based on the rationale that once parliament is dissolved and a general election called, the incumbent government continues lawfully in office as a necessity but is obliged to seek the confidence of the people to continue to govern or be replaced. In short, the incumbent or caretaker government after dissolution would have the lawful authority to govern but not the political authority, since the exercise of dissolution and a general election is to determine that very question. Hence, according to an expert study, a caretaker government should not: > Make any new policy which binds a future government. > Make new expenditure commitments other than of a routine kind. > Make public appointments which bind a future government. > Enter into significant government contracts. The enumeration of the restrictions above which go beyond the non-use of government facilities during the general election conforms to the concept of a caretaker government. It affirms the principle that a caretaker government is fundamentally engaged in a holding operation with the object of keeping the machinery of government functional, in a routine way, until the people elect the future government. The concept of a caretaker government therefore serves a useful purpose in the constitutional functioning of a parliamentary democracy.
|
| ‘PAS is not built around individuals’ Posted: 27 Mar 2013 04:03 PM PDT
In an exclusive interview, Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad talks of the party, his achievements in Selangor, and also touches on disgraced colleague Dr Hasan Ali. Little known to many, Khalid was detained for nine months under the infamous Internal Security Act (ISA) during Operation Lalang in 1987. Lisa J. Ariffin, FMT Despite his appointment as first-term parliamentarian after the 2008 General Election, PAS' Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad is not a new face in Malaysian politics. The brother of former minister, Shahrir Samad, has been a vocal proponent of the party since joining it in 1983. He contested in four parliamentary seats prior to winning Shah Alam. Little known to many, Khalid was detained for nine months under the infamous Internal Security Act (ISA) during Operation Lalang in 1987. In an exclusive interview with FMT, Khalid speaks of his achievements as first-term MP, the controversial Allah issue, and gives his views of his former colleague Dr Hasan Ali. FMT: Will you be defending the Shah Alam parliamentary seat? Will PAS be fielding any candidates in Sabah and Sarawak? If so, how many? Khalid: I don't have the figure with me now, but I believe we are fielding candidates in Kota Belud, and possibly Sandakan and Tawau. There are a few seats in both states we are taking and it will be a bit more than in 2008. We will make sure no seat is won by BN uncontested. In the end, it is PKR's choice assuming they win most seats in Selangor again. But if PAS has a candidate who is better and can be considered, we will put his name on the table. We want the best person at the helm. Khalid: As far as PAS is concerned, it is sorted out. The problem is we didn't have a chance to give proper and full explanation in the mainstream media. Our position is in the middle where we acknowledge that the term is universal and can be used by everyone, but specifically in the BM translation of the bible, "Tuhan" is the proper translation for God. "Allah" is an Arabic word, while "Tuhan" is BM. While allowing non-Muslims to use the word "Allah", its translation should not be encouraged. However, we are still open for discussion. Currently the decision decided upon takes into consideration society as a whole. The official stand taken by PAS leadership and Majlis Syura (spiritual council) acknowledges problems exist in society. It is an eye opener for current society for us to even say the universal term can be used by everyone. It shows that PAS takes consideration on the realities of society and will be more open. After Pakatan takes over, the issue can be discussed, and won't be politicised anymore. Has the sacking of Selangor exco and former member Dr Hasan Ali, affected the party? Khalid: There has been no impact because of his departure. PAS is not built around individuals. Regardless of who leaves the party, the party will still carry on. In the past, we even had presidents leaving the party, but we carried on. Of course, it is sad to see colleagues change. Hasan tried to bring in strong Malay elements, that's why the party rejected it. We don't have to bring in the element of race to strengthen to party. We believe in religious ideals and principles. Race is race, it as not principles, ideology and vision. We talk about religion and its teachings, and not based on the colour of birth. What he wanted to do was alien to the party. Hasan did well for a time, but in the end it was his strong belief that led to his downfall.
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan