If government motion seeking support for the measures taken by the government over price increases of food, oil and commodities, including reduction of oil subsidies were defeated, does it become turned into a no-confidence motion?

Logically no because it only means majority made up of Opposition – and some from govt – don’t agree with those measures and no confidence in these particular measures are not the same as no confidence in the government.

However, practically, yes, a defeat of the motion on these particular measures tantamount indirectly to a no confidence in the government if it were made clear the context:-

1. That both sides apply strictly the Party Whip to vote against the other side for the side of being against;

2. That no one is interested in evaluating or debating the merits or demerits of those measures by themselves;

3. That the reason for unusual stance in 2. is to test a show of force of who really commands the majority when Party Whip in 1.

4. And the additional reason for 2. is to circumvent the time restrictions of standing orders that are now too late in the day to abide for Vote of No Confidence;

5. and that the opposition against the government’s motion is not from now on going the ordinary course of being based on the merits or demerits of motion initiated by government but treated as the merits or demerits of the government itself that is sought to be proven to have lost the majority with every available motion whether initiated by government or the opposition;

6. And that 5. will go on and on until the necessary result is achieved.

You don’t need the motion of Vote of No Confidence now. Some “Deep Throat” within power circle could have spilled the beans forming basis of RPK’s SD and the effect will generate a tsunami as powerful as your vote of no confidence!

YB Kit

Forget about Shahrir’s Motion. Why does Pakatan Rakyat need to challenge his (govt) motion “seeking support for the measures taken by the government over price increases of food, oil and commodities, including reduction of oil subsidies” – just to circumvent standing orders restrictions on time & ‘test’ the waters on number of BN defectors and extent of their support? That is not an ideal motion to pick on because rakyat will question what have you got against these ‘measures’!

The biggest oportunity has just fallen on your lap presented by the one with brass balls!

Opposition/you should move a an emergency motion under Standing Order rule 18(1) requiring only 1 day notice to raise in Parliament a matter that definitely satisfies the three criteria of “a definite matter, urgent and of public interest” – ie the explosive contents of Raja Petra’s Statutory Declaration made in KL (for convenience, “RPK’s SD”).

Although RPK’s SD is based on unproven “hearsay” – and I am sure that is what the Speaker is going to say – the fact is – and I repeat here what I earlier posted: “RPK made the allegation by statutory declaration because he thought that such a declaration would be more convincing of the truth, accuracy and inherent reliability of facts declared in it. This is because of the not unreasonable assumption that no person making a Statutory Declaration would knowingly make statements that he knew false for fear of being implicated in a criminal offence of making false oath via the statutory declaration”. The Speaker’s ruling itself should be challenged if he dismisses the importance and implications of such allegations made via the RPK’s SD!

The other thing is this : RPK will not have the access to such information unless leaks are from BN’s Deep Throats out to deliver a surgical incision at the very jugular of the BN’s top leadership and make it fall!

In simple English it means an Opposition Motion to discuss in Parliament RPK’s SD on grounds that they are a “definite matter of urgent and of public interest” is something that detractors within BN’s rank – especially those who have evinced a desire to defect – could and might support.

For the Govt this is the intractable problem – to support such a motion, that may be the end, to deny it means the cover up, also leading to the end.

The reason is plain : they have to impose Party Whip to opose such a motion but here is the rub : How to crack the BN Party Whip when the Master holding the Whip is implicated and faces a conflict of rest allegation on his decison??????

Raise the issue of conflict of interest of the Whip – and request for someone else to take the whip and decide whether to crack it on this issue to be raised in Parliament!

Only you, amongst all, have the stature, guts, experience to raise such a motion!

“….It has nothing TO DO with prejudging…the VERACITY of the allegations and further whether they could lead eventually to the toppling of those implicated”.

“..such a Motion..”

harmanamri, I must say that you are right about the first major barrier that needs to be crossed (before any motion may be accepted for debate) that is not expected to be easy to cross – the all important Speaker, upon the assumption that he favours the government, and has not changed his stance in light of the recent developments in Sabah from SAPP/Yong Teck Lee.

Having said that, it must however, be pointed out that the other assumption made (yet to be tested) is that the Speaker’s ruling – that RPK’s SD should not be entertained for reasons of sub judice or not urgent & of public interest – cannot be immediately challenged by Opposition in the precence of media/observers there or that there is no political gain at all from challenging it and even losing in the process.

Is this true???

Challenging the Speaker’s rulings on points of order and occasionally dissenting from a ruling is itself the arsenal in the political battle – regardless of his decision.

Here we’re making an important asumption – that dissenting from his ruling cannot be put to a vote : is that true?

Because if Opposition could put that ruling to a vote, then the question of majority power could be tested with equal facility as opposing Sharir’s govt motion!

Except with added bonus that it deals with a relevant and sensational issue of confidence in govt than an extraneous issue of “measures for food, oil and commodities etc”.

If the above premises were correct then what Dawsheng said Today at 11: 54.22 will be relevant – there has to be at least two motions of no confidence vote….on Monday.

Godfather,

You appear to lack discipline in grappling an immediate point of contention argued to finality before jumping all over the place and scouring past threads for other past matters argued for revival to prove some point without concern whether it is a point of any interest or relevance to readers of the current thread. Necessarily, for people to understand what you are talking about, they have go back and revisit the flow of thoughts and lines of arguments of past threads to appreciate nuance and context, which is an onerous thing you are expecting of people, when the discussion and topic have moved on whilst you are still nostalgic ….