The paragraph deals only with the action after the fact that the PM ceases to command the confidence has been established. A vote of no confidence in the House would be one way to establish openly for all to see that the PM has lost the confidence. It is possible that the members march to the palace and to be counted. That can be done any day but it may not be easy to assemble all the people there at an appointed time. When the question of whether a member said to be willing to support Anwar might have second thought of the chances that others like minded person would follow through, when all of them have the right to be present in the lower house, the problem of getting them to be physically present in the Palace might be that much more difficult. Logistically, they might be blocked by traffic police, and might not be able to be there within limited period of the appointed time. So, going through the process of proving that AAB has lost half the MPs in the house is the safest way to go through it.

October 13 is the date where Parliament should convene. If I am not mistaken, there seems to be a provision that the PM could delay reconvening the parliament for 6 months. So, Anwar might have to consider some other ways to convince the King of the lack of support the PM has in the house.

TDM said that he would not ISA Anwar but would use the law if he was PM. The objective of preventing Anwar gaining power is the same. TDM replied in the context on how to prevent Anwar claiming the right to govern when he had more than half the MPs in the House. He also said he used the law in the past. He did not specify that he used the law because everybody is equal before the law, and whoever violated the law has to be dealt with accordingly. Do. TDM clearly stated that he used the law to stop Anwar’s political career. TDM must be confused with AAB’s action. AAB has not done anything to right the wrong in the judiciary, but yet he could not use the law to his advantage. AAB showed his anger and said that he would act on his own way. His trump card was only ISA. It turned out the card was two, not a trump.

src: http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/9/19/nation/2069691&sec=nation

Dr Mahathir said Kok’s arrest was not justified as there was no security reason at the moment but the Government could arrest her later for such a purpose if necessary.

He said if Kok was involved in trying to stop the azan (call for prayers), there should be an explanation that the subject was not something she should talk about.

It’s hard to think of a good reason not to do this if one really has the numbers.

For a no-confidence vote to succeed in resolving the deadlock, there must be some BN MPs who do not condition their support on the success of PR in taking over the government. There must be some BN MPs who are willing to gamble – to support Anwar while being fully aware of the risk incurred if the vote of no-confidence fails. But this goes against Kanthanboy’s suggestion that BN MPs condition their support on the success or likely success of PR.

Actually, I think Anwar is banking on some BN MPs who are willing to gamble to create a ripple effect so as to win over some hesitating BN MPs. That probably explains why he is pushing for the no-confidence vote. But in any case, it seems that he has to do all this because he hasn’t got the numbers.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/376827/1/.html

During the no-confidence vote, will A stand up (assuming the mode of voting suggested by Kanthanboy)? Before A stands up, he must make a judgement as to the likelihood of the success of the no-confidence vote. That means he has to obtain some reasonable evidence that at least 30 other BN MPs will also stand up. But he probably won’t get the evidence, for the reason I mention in my previous posts. But without such evidence he can’t conclude that PR is likely to succeed. According to my second interpretation of Kanthanboy’s suggestion, without thinking that PR is likely to succeed, a BN MP who has made a conditional pledge will not support Anwar in voting against the PM.

So the deadlock can’t be solved by the no-confidence vote.

[In this regard PM has already said he won’t do it. I can imagine that it would be a joke on him to otherwise to convene an emergency session thereby admitting that it is public interest for a motion of no confidence to be tested against his own popularity].

I reiterate : why is this repeated focus on “vote of no confidence” or motion of no confidence that can only be delivered when Parliament is in session?

The key operative words of Article 43(4) of Federal Constitution is that “the Prime Minister ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House of Representatives” – and NOT the words “motion and vote of no confidence” which are neither mentioned in the Constitution or Standing Orders.

The onus is on Anwar to prove that the Prime Minister has already ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House of Representatives” .

Yes Anwar can prove that by a “motion and vote of no confidence” when Parliament is in session. That would certainly be one of the conventional ways but is it the only and exclusive way?

When Parliament is not in session, as is now, you mean there is no other way (beside motion and vote of no confidence) to prove that the PM has ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House of Representatives per Article 43(4) of Federal Constitution?

There is no basis to take such a narrow view especially in exceptional times.

The deadlock you refer to is not the deadlock I mention in my message.

In that message, the deadlock refers to the perculiar problem arising from your suggestion – i.e. the situation in which the defecting MPs cannot even cast a vote for or against the PM in a no-confidence vote, given your suggestion that they are only ‘willing to join whoever that form [sic] the government’. The deadlock can’t be solved by a no-confidence vote since the defecting MPs will only be willing to join PR in voting against the PM if PR is the government, but PR is not the government before the vote.

Perhaps what you mean by joining the PR is becoming a member of PR rather than joining the PR in voting against the PM. Well, in that case, your suggestion will get into the second problem I mentioned in my earlier post. Let me explain. You may think that the defecting MPs are reasoning in the following way. ‘If we vote against the PM in a no-confidence vote, then PR will take over the government. So we should vote against him and join PR after BN is toppled in that vote.’ But for this to be a reasonable reasoning a defecting MP needs to know that the no-confidence vote is likely to succeed. How does he assess the chances of its success? It will get to the second problem I mention in my earlier post, cited below:

‘You may say that their support is conditional on their judgement of whichever party is most likely to form a new government. But how are they going to assess whether PR is more likely to form a new government? Anwar may have shown to a defecting MP the signed documents of other defecting MPs. This is possible. But doesn’t this go against the defecting MPs’ request to keep their names secret until they are confident that PR is more likely to succeed? You may argue that while a defecting MP objects to his name being revealed in public or to the PM or other top BN leadership, he may have no problem with his name being revealed to another BN MP considering defection. But this does not sound very reasonable since the MP could be very suspicious of a BN MP who says that he is considering defection – he may think that the latter could be a spy from BN leadership. So he probably won’t agree to his name being revealed to other BN MPs who claim to be considering defection. In that case, there is no way to assess whether PR is likely to succeed.’

You might as well arrest my 90 year old grandmother for mouthing off at the local market if they had a reason to arrest Teresa.

No this is just the mother of all stupidity that evolution should have eliminated long time ago.. The fact is we have pea-brain dinasaurs disguised as human beings around.

I agree with you that this will end up in a deadlock. This is precisely the situation now. The deadlock will end only when a motion of no-confidence is tabled. At that moment each of those “numbers” will has to decide to jump or not to jump. If Anwar were to request every member of the house to stand up one by one to vote on the motion all you need is one of those “numbers” stand up to start the domino effect.

‘If these MPs’ support are conditional upon PR’s success in forming a new government…’ in my message to Kanthanboy

should have been:

‘If These MP’s support are conditional upon PR’s success in forming a new government, it will lead to a deadlock. If these MPs’ support are conditional upon their judgement that PR is more likely to succeed in forming a new government…’

He accused the PM of failing to understand that the phrase ‘hala tuju politik’ referred to the transfer of power.

I think this is a weak argument. The phrase is just too vague. When the PM said that the letter only mentioned ‘general things about politics in Malaysia’, this sounded like an appropriate interpretation of ‘hala tuju politik’ on ordinary standards.

Anwar said that he couldn’t very well said something like ‘saya nak gulingkan kerajaan’. Of course he couldn’t and shouldn’t. But that does not mean that there is no other polite way of saying it which is clearer than the vague ‘hala tuju politik’. He could mention ‘hala tuju politik memandangkan hasrat lebih daripada 31 MPs BN untuk bersama PR’ or ‘peralihan kuasa kepada PR’.

We are being forced willy-nilly to accept whatever the government decides… shame you, Malaysia lovely Prime Minister he claimed himself.

“ISA MUST GO”, I fully agreed.
“Bodawi MUT GO”

Bodowi has made a lot of shame to Malaysia. Better he resigned one for all.

Hidup Rakyat, Free Malaysian, Free Raja Petra, Free Teresa.