Royal Or Loyal?

• 18 August 2016
• 1 comments

For weeks now, since Najib was publicly proved to be a mega thief and entirely unsuitable to be Prime Minister of Malaysia, the public have waited patiently for the King to act. He has the constitutional power to do so. He has also a clear public duty as Head of State to respect the Constitution.

That fundamental law makes it crystal clear that the King has the power to dissolve Parliament at any time without waiting for it to run its full course. Obviously he will not do so lightly; even when it has been clear to all since the last general election that UMNO stole it and did not get a majority of the popular vote. But for how long can he close his eyes to the 1MDB scandal and the part played in it by his Prime Minister?

The King is a part of the Constitution and, with the exception of this one power of dissolution of Parliament, his role is largely ceremonial, confined to presiding over the life of the nation, while the elected Parliament governs. Ideal in theory but what happens when, in practice, the elected body is a fraud? What happens when the leader of the Parliament is publicly proven to be a mega criminal?

Whatever the pretence the fact remains that the constitution includes a power of the King to dismiss Parliament. The power is clear and unequivocal. It is there as a safety valve for emergency use.

There is no excuse for further delay and continuing failure to act will demonstrate that the Constitution is not working. A future government would not be able to ignore that and fundamental reform would ensue. Whether that would still include a monarchical system in a part of the world run on republican and Presidential lines is open to doubt.