The antics of our so-called august House of Parliament have generated a lot of publicity locally as well as worldwide, especially with today's internet. There are endless articles and comments touching on its legality in suspending at will (without those suspended being given a chance to be heard), BN's ulterior motive in regaining two-third majority in Parliament which it lost in March 2008, and so on.
We have lawyer Nazri calling lawyer Karpal Singh 'third class' lawyer while the latter replied later that the former has 'no class'. We have lawyers everywhere, but their standards vary from a scale of 1 to 10. Ask the man in the street about Karpal Singh and he can tell you that he is a well known defence lawyer. Even my neighbour, while walking towards his daughter to reassure her being afraid of our dog, said, 'Don't worry, Karpal Singh is here'! But Nazri? He is known for 'Racist, racist, racist...' so many times in one go that someone counted more than 40 times according to Hansard. I have recently watched a BBC Economic Debate where participants (including Malini Mehra, Kevin Rudd, He Yafei) were given 20 seconds each to have their last say at the end of it, and I can imagine what Nazri would come out with.
Anyway, I am confused because of the following different views on the topic of two-third majority in our Parliament...
According to Malay Mail:
Dangerous to amend Constitution, say analysts
NADIRAH H. RODZI
Friday, December 17th, 2010 12:49:00
According to Uppercaise:
Bodoh is the word. Nazri 1 Pakatan 0
16 DECEMBER 2010
CONSTITUTIONAL EXPLANATION FOR WHY BN HAS NOT REGAINED TWO THIRD MAJORITY
ReplyDeleteConstitutional amendment bills must be passed in each House of Parliament “by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of members [MPs] of” that House (Art. 159(3) of the Federal Constitution). Thus, for the Dewan Rakyat, the minimum number of votes required is 148, being two-thirds of its 222 members. The temporary suspension of some MPs from attending its proceedings does not lower the number of votes required for amending the Constitution (i.e. 148) as the suspended MPs are still members of the Dewan Rakyat. If they were no longer MPs, then there would have to be by-elections for their constituencies and that is clearly not going to happen - which proves that even though they are suspended, they are still MPs.
In other words, as the total number of members of the Dewan Rakyat remains the same even if some of the MPs may be temporarily prohibited from attending its proceedings, the number of votes required to amend the Constitution must also remain the same – 148 out of 222.
Thus, although BN may have a 2/3rd control of the Dewan Rakyat without the suspended MPs, they are still not able to amend the constitution, which requires a minimum of 148 votes i.e. 2/3rds of the total number of MPs (including those which have been suspended). As BN only has 137 seats, even with the additional votes from the 6 BN friendly independents (making a total of 143), they still will not have the required minimum 148 votes to amend the Constitution.
Thanks to Malaysian Constitution for the clear explanation on why BN has not regained two-third majority.
ReplyDeleteWonder why Malay Mail chose to give the wrong impression to the public!