Ironic that Takiyuddin would raise ‘constitutional crisis’ argument

A Historical Context

It is ironic that PAS secretary-general Takiyuddin Hassan should say that Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s admission that the attorney-general (AG) had received the royal addendum allowing former prime minister Najib Razak to serve the remainder of his prison sentence under house arrest is deeply problematic. This comes from the same person who, as then law minister, announced in Parliament on July 26, 2021, that all emergency ordinances promulgated by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong had been revoked, when in fact this was not true since the instrument of revocation had not been presented to the Agong.

The Royal Addendum and the Constitution

The Agong had in fact expressed his displeasure, in a statement issued by the Comptroller of the Royal Household, that his “titah” to Takiyuddin and the AG on July 24, 2021, that the revocation of the emergency ordinances be tabled and debated in Parliament was not complied with. Article 150(3) of the Federal Constitution clearly stipulates that “a proclamation of emergency and any ordinance promulgated under Clause (2B) shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and, if not sooner revoked, shall cease to have effect if resolutions are passed by both Houses annulling such proclamation or ordinance …” Therefore, the emergency ordinances should have been tabled and debated in Parliament.

The Motion to Censure

This led to a motion submitted on July 29, 2021, by Ipoh Barat MP M Kula Segaran, who sought to censure the AG and Takiyuddin for allegedly misleading Parliament that the emergency ordinances had been revoked. The motion by Kula described this as treasonous (“derhaka”) and called for both of them to be censured. Only on technicalities was Takiyuddin able to dodge the motion.

An Ironic Twist

What an irony. The same person who raised the constitutional crisis argument now finds himself on the other side, complaining about the same issue. It is a clear case of “pot calling the kettle black”.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Takiyuddin’s argument that the Prime Minister’s admission could cause a constitutional crisis is ironic, given his own actions in the past. It is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, and it is unsurprising that his credibility has been called into question.

FAQs

Q: What was the issue with the emergency ordinances?
A: The emergency ordinances should have been tabled and debated in Parliament, as stipulated by Article 150(3) of the Federal Constitution.

Q: What was the outcome of the motion to censure Takiyuddin and the AG?
A: Takiyuddin was able to dodge the motion on technicalities.

Q: What is the irony in Takiyuddin’s argument?
A: The same person who raised the constitutional crisis argument in the past is now complaining about the same issue.