PETALING JAYA: The defeat of a constitutional amendment Bill does not require the resignation of a government, says constitutional law expert Emeritus Prof Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi.
“(The) Defeat of a Bill or even on a constitutional amendment does not require resignation of the government. Such defeats are rare in Malaysia and abroad but take place now and then without the government’s resignation,” said the principal research fellow at Universiti Malaya.
Earlier, Datuk Fahmi Fadzil said a motion to reintroduce a constitutional amendment Bill to limit the Prime Minister's tenure to a maximum of 10 years can be tabled again for consideration at any time.
"We can retable the motion at any time during the parliamentary sittings. There are two more meetings this year, around June and October, and we can bring it back," says the Communications Minister.
Shad Saleem said the scenario would be different if a prime minister loses a vote of confidence or if the government’s annual Budget failed to get approval from the Dewan Rakyat.
“That would trigger Art 43(4) - which deals with loss of confidence of the majority of the members of the Dewan Rakyat and a choice of either resigning or requesting an early dissolution.
Article 43(4) of the Federal Constitution says that if the Prime Minister loses the confidence of the majority of the Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives), then he must resign unless the Yang di-Pertuan Agong agrees to his request to dissolve Parliament to pave the way for a general election.
"Perhaps in this case, the government should indulge in further consultation and try again if the two-thirds vote appears available. Failure to obtain a two-thirds (vote) does not trigger Article 43(4),” he added.
The constitutional amendment to limit the prime minister’s tenure in office to ten years failed to secure a two-thirds majority in the Dewan Rakyat on Monday.
Only 146 MPs had voted in favour of it.
A constitutional amendment would require a two-thirds majority of at least 148 votes.
A total of 32 MPs were absent, and 44 abstained from voting.
The last time a constitutional amendment failed to clear the Dewan Rakyat was in 2019, when a Bill to restore the status of Sabah and Sarawak as equal partners with the Federation of Malaya under the MA63 provisions was rejected under the Pakatan Harapan government.
It garnered 138 votes, 10 short of the requirement. The Bill was later passed in 2021.
Joshua Wu, constitutional lawyer, said the general rule is that a Bill rejected (negatived) during its second reading cannot be tabled again in the same parliamentary session.
“This is if the subsequent Bill contains substantially the same provisions as the earlier Bill, which is mentioned under Standing Order 63 of the Dewan Rakyat,” said Wu.
“However, the government could put forth and pass a motion to suspend that Standing Order with Standing Order 90, which states that the Dewan Rakyat cannot suspend (ignore) any Standing Order unless the Speaker gives consent.
“If that happens, then theoretically, the government could retable the negatived Bill during this current parliamentary session. For example, during the upcoming second meeting from June to July or the third meeting from October to December, according to the Dewan Rakyat calendar.
According to Wu, the entire parliamentary process will have to start again if the Bill is tabled again during this session (provided Standing Order 63 of the Standing Orders of the Dewan Rakyat has been suspended).
“Constitutional impact-wise, the fact that the Bill could not get the requisite votes during the second reading means that the status quo remains and that the intended constitutional amendments would be delayed further,” he said.
