Constitutional crises in the past

Sarawak 1977
Sarawak presented the first constitutional crisis in Malaysia.

H.P Lee in Constitutional Conflicts in Contemporary Malaysia related that Stephen Kalong Ningkan was appointed as Chief Minister of Sarawak on 22 July 1963.

On 16 June 1966, Sarawak Governor, Abang Haji Openg called for the resignation of Stephen with support from majority members of the State Legislature of Sarawak also known as Council Negri. Openg and members of Council had lost confidence.

Instead of resigning Stephen urged a reconvening of state assembly to test the notion of non – confidence.

In an effort to dismiss Stephen, Abang Haji Openg and members of the state cabinet appointed Tawi Sli as the new chief Minister on 17 June 1966.

Stephen instituted legal proceedings at Kuching High Court to declare his dismissal as void and restrain Tawi Sli from acting as Sarawak Chief Minister.

During the trial the governor stated that he dismissed Ningkan on receipt of a letter signed by 21 members of state assembly who lost confidence in Ningkan.

In passing his judgement, Chief Justice Harley Ag ruled that the dismissal of Stephen was void. He concluded that based on the provisions of the Sarawak constitution, lack of confidence can only be demonstrated by vote in the state assembly.

Stephen was reinstated. In a second attempt, Tawi Sli and Abang Haji Openg requested reconvening of state legislative assembly. A motion of no confidence was moved. Abang Haji Openg received signed statutory declarations from twenty five members of state legislative assembly. Stephen retaliated by calling for dissolution of state assembly and fresh state elections. Abang Haji refused consent since the position of governor provided absolute discretion in the matters of state assembly dissolution.

Under these circumstances, Agong proclaimed a state of emergency and Parliament passed the Emergency (Federal Constitution and Constitution of Sarawak) Act 1966. The act solved the constitutional crisis in Sarawak by empowering the governor to convene state legislative assembly at his absolute discretion. The power to dismiss the chief minister should the chief minister fail to resign after a vote of no confidence passed against him was also bestowed to the governor.

Kelantan 1977

PAS joined the Alliance government in 1973. It was acknowledged to have a stronghold in the state of Kelantan. After the formation of Barisan Nasional in 1974, UMNO’s promise of non – interference were not kept.

At the state level as Umno-PAS rivalries intensified, leading eventually to PAS’ decision to remove the incumbent Mentri Besar Mohamed Nasir for defying party instructions in 1977.
Mohd Nasir appeared to be more a recalcitrant than an Umno convert, but his defiance towards the PAS leadership gave Umno great satisfaction. PAS called for his resignation, but he refused, and presented himself as the champion of an honest and clean government against corrupt and self-serving politicians.

A “no-confidence” motion was tabled in the Kelantan state assembly and carried by 20 PAS votes after 13 Umno and one MCA assembly members walked out in protest.
A legal impasse followed when Mohamed Nasir called for the dissolution of the state assembly. His supporters demonstrated in the streets, and violence and looting erupted.
At the federal level, Hussein Onn took over prime ministership following Tun Razak’s untimely death.

This led the Federal government to ask the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to declare an Emergency and a curfew in the state capital in 1977.

H. P Lee in Constitutional Conflicts in Contemporary Malaysia notes that Hussein Onn invoked Article 150 of the Federal Constitution to deal with the problem. Article 150 of the Federal Constitution is on proclamation of emergency.

An emergency bill for Kelantan, pending a new state election, was rushed through Parliament and passed with 118 votes in support, and 18 against. Of the 14 PAS members, 12 voted against while all six DAP members opposed the motion. The bill is known as Emergency Powers (Kelantan) Act 1977.

PAS members who held office in the BN government resigned but said they would remain in the BN. However, the BN Council decided to expel all members who had voted against the Kelantan Emergency Bill.

The emergency was lifted in February 1978 and in the March state elections was held. Umno then formed the state government after defeating PAS.

Sabah 1985

Berjaya under the leadership of then Chief Minister Harris Salleh lost Sabah in the state elections in 1985 to Joseph Pairin Kitingan's Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS). PBS controlled 26 seats in the 48 seat state assembly. United Sabah National Organisation (USNO) led by Mustapha Harun won 16 seats and Berjaya had only 6 seats.

In an attempt to seize the state from PBS, Gordon P. Means in Malaysian Politics: The Second Generation explained:

“Harris Salleh conceived of a scheme to deny his arch-rival and critic, Joseph Pairin Kitingan, of the fruits of victory. Under the Sabah constitution, … the Chief Minister had the power to appoint six non – elected assemblymen. Berjaya, with its six appointed members would support Tun Mustapha for Chief Minister, who with USNO’s 16 elected members, and the 6 appointed members would constitute a majority of 28 in the 48-member Assembly. By this move Berjaya would also have power to force a new election at any favourable moment so as to recoup its losses.”

Ling Jiew Bu in his book, The Night That Shook Sabah: The Tun Mustapha Writ stated that the incident was called “Palace Coup”. Mustapha Harun along with his supporters entered the residence of Sabah Governor in the middle of the night, forcing the governor to appoint him Chief Minister on 22nd April 1985 at 5.30am.

The appointment was revoked on the same day as Pairin was appointed and sworn in as chief minister.

Mustapha Harun claimed that the governor’s revocation of his appointment as Chief Minister on 22nd April was ultra vires in court.

Justice Tan Chiaw Thong of the High Court dismissed Mustapha’s claim based on Article 6(3) of the Sabah state constitution.

Conclusion

How are all these crises relevant to the current Perak crisis? All the above crises proves that a motion of no confidence is essential in the removal of the chief minister or the current government. Failure to do so would open the option of a state of emergency.