Will the MPs vote obeying their oath, or party lines?
Two motions are pending before Parliament: (1) Motion calling for a Vote of No Confidence against the PM; and (2) Motion for the Replacement of the current Speaker of Parliament. If the Speaker motion succeeds, the new Speaker can block the Vote of No Confidence. What will happen on the 13th?
. The two motions
There are two impending motions before Parliament.
The first is the vote of no confidence.
The second is the dismissal of the current Speaker.
If the second motion to replace the Speaker succeeds, then it is entirely within the powers of the new Speaker to allow or refuse to put the Vote of No Confidence to the House.
The question is which motion will go first?
Ironically, it is the Speaker who will decide on this, because only he has the power.
. Which motion should go first?
It is the Speaker who determines how and which motions are debated in the House of Representatives or the Dewan Rakyat.
. Is replacing the speaker the most important matter confronting the nation? What do you think?
Should the Motion on the Speaker’s Dismissal go first?
Since the House of Representatives – the Dewan Rakyat – is the House of the People, matters relating to the people for the people must go first.
Here is a motion that suggests that Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and his colleagues do not have a majority in Parliament. From the time he was appointed, he has avoided direct Parliamentary challenge: that was in March and June 2020. That is twice now.
If the question of who should run the Government is not in the national interest, what is?
Second, a Motion filed earlier comes first. There is a Book in Parliament called the ‘Order Book’. That which comes first in the Order Book must be debated first. The Notice for the Motion for a Vote of No Confidence was filed earlier – in June of 2020. That motion has priority of time.
. The Real Question is: Should the Speaker be replaced every time a Government Changes?
This view held by some politicians is completely against the Rule of Law.
Just because a change of government occurs, that does not mean the Speaker must change.
A Speaker is called the ‘Speaker’ because he speaks for the people. The Speaker is a representative of the People.
A Speaker must always be independent, and neutral. He cannot be the Government’s agent or worse servant.
If a neutral speaker is not in place, we lose the Voice of the People in the very place that the people should speak: the House of Representatives.
A Government should not control the Speaker’s appointment. If it does, it creates this impression–
“The Government is using its Speaker to block motions that are unfavourable to it”.
For example, any future Motions calling for a Vote of No Confidence can be blocked.
That is hardly the Rule of Law, you’d agree, wouldn’t you?
. So what will happen next?
There are several possibilities:
(1). Before Parliament meets next, the Speaker may resign. You never know!
(2). Or, Mahathir, who filed the motion, may withdraw it. It should not be withdrawn, even if the Opposition does not have the numbers. Who knows? Some pro-Government MPs might support it, in the end – and that is what – it seems to me, the current government is worried about. Also even if the Motion is unsuccessful, the nation will know who voted against it.
(3). Or, finally, the Speaker may allow the Dismissal Motion to take precedence; or the Speaker may not allow the Speaker Dismissal motion.
 Does the Speaker need replacing?
The answer is a ‘No.’
There has been no suggestion that he has not been neutral.
His integrity and ability to perform his duties are a matter of public record.
So, I do not see any plausible reason to replace him.
I have written and spoken on it, and the links are below.
. The next question is, can the Government use its Majority in this way?
To answer this, we need to look at the duty of MPs.
 To whom does an MP owe a duty?
When an MP is sworn-in, he swears upon the Oath in the 6th Schedule of the Federal Constitution (Article 59).
Every MP swears to do two things:
First, he swears that he will ‘bear true faith and allegiance to Malaysia.’ What does this mean? He is swearing upon his conscience to protect the interest of the nation. He has to protect the people in the nation, the assets of the nation, and the well-being of the nation. If an MP does the opposite, then he breaches his duty, doesn’t he?
The second limb in the oath is that the MP swears that he will ‘preserve, protect and defend its constitution.’ What does this mean? The MP is duty bound to defend the Federal Constitution.
So by kicking out an honest Speaker, does the MP do his duty? What do you think?
 In whose interest should an MPs act?
Does an MP owe a duty to the people who elected him?
What do you think?
When an MP swears allegiance to Malaysia, the MP swears loyalty to the country, and not to his party, no matter what party he represents.
 Can an MP obey his party and disregard the people’s will?
There is nothing in the Constitution that allows an MP to vote according to his party’s wishes.
If he does, he breaches the constitution.
He breaches his fiduciary duties to the nation.
And he acts outside his sworn oath.
If an MP does not stand up against people who abuse their powers, or are involved in Kleptocracy, how can anyone say that the MP has acted in accordance with what he has sworn?
. Why is neutrality important in Parliament?
This is because the parliament is a place of the people, and for the people.
Whatsoever occurs within it, is for the betterment of the people, and in accordance with the will of the people.
In acting in the interest of the nation, an MP must act in compliance with the Electoral Mandate given by the people to Parliament.
It is the people who elected the MP.
So when an MP steps into Parliament his only interest is to protect and respect three things:
(1) the nation;
(2) the constitution; and
(3) the Electoral Mandate.
. What was the mandate you might ask?
In the May 2018 Elections, the people rejected kleptocracy. The people asked for a fair, clean and transparent Government.
 How would the MPs vote on July 13?
Should an MP vote according to the will of the people or along party lines?
MPs are accountable to the people, not their respective parties.
If an MP votes according to how his party demands of him, or if he votes in his own self-interest, for cabinet position and for financial rewards, Parliament will soon be filled with selfish, amphibious MPs.
It will be filled with MPs who are not interested in the nation
MPs who neither believe, nor practice Rukun Negara.
This will create political instability: and that will be bad for everyone, whether it is in the short term, or the long term: like that of the life of your grandchildren. Think about it.
What will our MPs do on July 13?