Idris: No issue with appointing MPs to head GLCs

Dato Idris Buang
Advertisement

By Lian Cheng

KUCHING, June 1: Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu (PBB) asserts there is no issue in appointing sitting MPs to head government-linked companies (GLCs).

Its information chief Datuk Idris Buang, however, also pointed out that it would be interesting to have a discussion over the issue.

Advertisement

ā€œYes, it will be interesting to get more views on this. Whatever it is, I believe, we do have adequate legislation to address such issues raised within the context of our constitution and basic principles in a democracy.

ā€œI am quite certain our courts had in the past addressed and settled all legal issues surrounding the definition of this phrase from the constitutional law perspective.

ā€œThe opposition and their cohorts are trying to artificially create ā€˜a storm in a tea cupā€™ in order to arouse and ignite sentiments that could snowball into some degree of pressure, substantial enough to force ā€˜His Majesty the YDP Agong to prorogue Parliament and decree a snap electionā€™,ā€ according to Idris in a statement today.

Idris who is also Muara Tuang assemblyman was responding to a blog post arguing that there is constitutional crisis in Malaysia as MPs appointed to the boards of GLCs are disqualified by their appointments by virtue of holding ā€œoffice of profitā€ as prohibited by the constitution, citing Article 48 (1)C).

The blog post asserted that nine out of 112 Perikatan Nasional (PN) MPs are said to be appointed to GLC boards, some as chairpersons. As such, the dissolution of Parliament is now unavoidable.

ā€œIt is difficult to see how the King can now avoid the fact that his government must be dissolved,ā€ the blog post titled ā€œMalaysiaā€™s new constitutional crisis ā€” MPs appointed to the boards of GLCs are disqualified from being MPs; dissolution of Parliament now unavoidableā€ published yesterday.

According to Idris, the said post is trying to overstretch the meaning of “office of profit” from what is really stated in the federal (Article 160 (d) ) and state ( Article 44) constitution.

ā€œAs defined under Article 160 para (d) of the Federal Constitution and Article 44 of the Sarawak State constitution, one feature of ā€˜an office of profitā€™ is, it must be ā€˜whole timeā€™ or full-time job; therefore as chairman or board member of any GLCs, I think, is not to be considered as holding an ā€˜office of profitā€™.

ā€œMoreover, some GLCs are incorporated under the Companies Act and having their own sets of constitutions, rules of governance, policies and procedures totally separate from that of the government departments in public service .

ā€œThere are other specific and general laws relevant to regulate conduct disposition and action of directors in companies even though these GLCs are wholly owned by the government to ensure integrity, accountability, transparency and propriety in their affairs.ā€

ā€œIn other words, they (GLCs) are not bound by the rules and procedures ordinarily meant for the public service or government departments per se,ā€ Idris argued.

Idris who is a lawyer by training, highlighted that apart from the Companies Act, there are also the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act, the Penal Code, the Securities Industry Act and Capital Market Services Act (for those dealing in securities and capital market) and other regulations that are governing GLCs.

He stressed that apart from those clearly meant by the said Article 160 (d) of the Federal Constitution, for any other appointments or positions whatsoever, they must each be expressly declared under such relevant law, Act, ordinances or statutes to be “an office of profit ” in order to be called as such.

ā€œIt follows that the chairmanship or membership on boards of GLCs, statutory bodies or outfits must be first expressly declared as ā€˜office of profitā€™ by their relevant law, for it to come under the constitutional definition of ā€˜office of profitā€™,ā€ Idris reasoned.

He also argued that the term “office of profit” in relation to the qualification of a representative of Parliament should not to be confused with “profiteering in the ordinary sense of the word” in which the blog post is attempting to relate ā€œoffice of profitā€ to a different perspective or context altogether peculiar to the qualification of Members of Parliament (including state assemblymen).

ā€œA layman would wonder why judges, police officers, public servants are all considered as holding ā€˜offices of profitā€™. They are each considered holding an ā€˜office of profitā€™ in the constitutional sense and therefore not eligible to qualify as an MP, simply because these ā€˜whole timeā€™ or ā€˜full-timeā€™ positions fall within the said definition and possibly because of the degree of accountability these positions directly demand.ā€

He added, different countries may have different connotation or application of the term. For the sake of intellectual discourse, he thus raised the question whether the post of Mayor of London which UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson used to hold, is an ā€œoffice of profitā€?

ā€œThen there are also questions revolving around the mayors of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and other American cities whether these too, were in the writer’s own term ‘offices of profit’, especially when some of them may also run for Congress or Senate. Personally I am not familiar with their system,ā€ said Idris. ā€” DayakDaily

Advertisement