LETTER: These people are going around misleading everyone on the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
A little digression . . .
The Constitution, for example, is more about conventions i.e. the working of the document.
Under the uncodified/unwritten British Constitution, for example, sole executive authority in the UK rests with the Queen. The British Constitution makes no mention of a Prime Minister and Council of Ministers.
Yet, the Queen delegates her executive authority to a Prime Minister by administration and he or she goes on to recommend the appointment of a Council of Ministers.
The British Constitution being silent on a Prime Minister does not mean the Queen can make no such appointment.
Law works in the negative i.e. don’t do this or don’t that.
If the Queen decides to do away with the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers and tries to exercise sole executive authority, there’s nothing to stop her except the conventions.
The British people will chop off her head if she tries to exercise executive authority, i.e. if they don’t bundle her off into exile or replace her with someone “sane”.
The universal principle in power is that one doesn’t keep it to oneself. It must be given away, by delegation, as much as 95 per cent of it. The whole process has to be duplicated all the way down to the bottom. That creates a dynamic situation.
The Queen will still retain some residual powers beyond merely appointing the Prime Minister and addressing the Parliament and the nation. She can sack him or her and/or advise him or her to resign. Is there any law, anywhere in the world, that states a head of state cannot advise the head of government to resign?
Likewise, the Federal Constitution does not state the Agong — it means Chief, not King — can sack the Prime Minister. That does not mean the Agong cannot sack the Prime Minister. There’s no law stating the Agong cannot sack the Prime Minister.
There’s no convention but there’s always a first time. There needs to be a first time to lay down the law or establish the parameters of the law.
If the Agong can appoint the Prime Minister, he can also sack him or her.
Of course, Parliament can decide on the fate of the Prime Minister but that doesn’t mean the Agong cannot sack him or her. It must be remembered that it’s not Parliament that appoints the Prime Minister but the Agong.
If the Agong wants to sack the Prime Minister, who can stop him? Will Parliament sit and defy the Agong by reinstating the Prime Minister?
If the Agong sacks the Prime Minister, nothing can be done. If the Agong advises the Prime Minister to resign, the latter would have to comply or risk getting sacked.
Likewise, the British Queen having certain obligations towards Sabah and Sarawak is a myth, a fairy tale.
Even if the Queen does have certain obligations, what can be done if she refuses to “discharge” them?
So, no point going around flogging the so-called Queen’s Obligations.
If law cannot be enforced, is unenforceable and is not enforced, it ceases to exist. That’s a principle in law.
Likewise, it’s no point certain people in Sarawak4Sarawakians (S4S) sending a memo to the Queen on MA63. They need to have their heads examined. That’s what a British Court would determine.
Not so young lawyer