3/30/2018 Negotiating a vote of no confidence - Reflecting On The Law | The Star Online

Negotiating a vote of no con dence

REFLECTING ON THE LAW

Thursday, 29 Oct 2015

By Shad Saleem Faruqi

Despite the Westminster systems’ role in enforcing responsibility, there is also uncertainty
surrounding it.

THE nation is abuzz with news that the Opposition in Parliament is readying itself to introduce a
motion of no con dence against the Prime Minister.

The principle that the Prime Minister must maintain the con dence of the lower House is a central
feature of the British style of parliamentary democracy that we inherited in 1957.

Article 43(4): Our Constitution does not explicitly refer to a motion of no con dence. However, it
embraces the principle of answerability and accountability of the political executive to the
legislature through Article 43(4), which provides that, “If the Prime Minister ceases to command the
con dence of the majority of the members of the House of Representatives, then, unless at his
request the Yang di-Pertuan Agong dissolves Parliament, the Prime Minister shall tender the
resignation of the Cabinet.”

How “con dence” can be lost and what amounts to “majority” are nowhere explicated.

Loss of con dence: In the United Kingdom till 2011, there were four parliamentary techniques to
express loss of con dence.

First, an explicit vote of no con dence in the Prime Minister.

Second, rejection of the motion of thanks after the Royal Address.

Third, defeat of a supply bill. This was what happened to Canadian PM Trudeau in 1974, Australian
PM Alfred Deakin in 1904 and Arthur Fadden in 1941.

Fourth, defeat on any crucial piece of legislation or Policy Paper.

Presently, under Britain’s Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011, a motion explicitly resolving “that this
House has no con dence in Her Majesty’s Government” is the only way to indicate loss of
con dence.

https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/reflecting-on-the-law/2015/10/29/negotiating-a-vote-of-no-confidence/ 1/4
3/30/2018 Negotiating a vote of no confidence - Reflecting On The Law | The Star Online

Majority: This term can mean three things: a simple majority of those present and voting; an
absolute majority of the total membership of the Dewan Rakyat i.e. 112 out of 222 MPs; special two-
thirds of the total membership, that is 148 out of 222 MPs.

It is submitted that for the purpose of Article 43(4), the term “majority” means an absolute majority
of the total membership of the lower House.

In case of a tie, the Speaker will have a casting vote but not if he is a non-elected member of the
House: Article 57(1A).

Collective responsibility: A vote of no con dence operates not only against the Prime Minister but
also the entire Cabinet.

All its members must resign from of ce. But there is no bar to their reappointment in the next
government.

Instances: In the UK from 1782 till today, there have been 11 successful votes of no con dence
against Prime Ministers: Lord North (1782), John Russell (1866), Benjamin Disraeli (1968),
Gladstone (1885, 1886), Robert Gascoyne-Cecil (1886, 1892), Archibald Primrose (1895), Baldwin
(1924), MacDonald (1924) and Callaghan (1979).

In India, three Prime Ministers have fallen due to such votes: Vishwanath Pratap (1991), Deve
Gowda (1997) and Atal Bihari Vajpayee (1999).

In Malaysia, no federal Prime Minister has ever been forced out of of ce on such a motion but three
such instances at the State level illustrate the vitality of the doctrine. These involved Stephen Kalong
Ningkan (Sarawak, 1966); Datuk Harun Idris (Selangor, 1976); and Datuk Mohammad Nasir
(Kelantan, 1977).

PM’s choices: A Prime Minister confronted by a vote of no con dence has a number of ghting
chances. First, he may counter the Opposition motion by initiating his own motion of con dence to
prove his support!

Second, he may advise the King to prorogue the House for the maximum period of six months
allowed by Article 55(1). In the interim, he can use the carrot and the stick to bolster his support.

In 2008, Canadian PM Stephen Harper took this recourse to delay a vote of no con dence.

Third, the PM could threaten the MPs that if he loses the vote he will not resign but will advise
dissolution. This may curb rebellion within the ranks as MPs do not wish their term to end
prematurely.

Fourth, the PM may request the King to dissolve the Dewan Rakyat. If the Monarch agrees, then
under a constitutional convention the PM will remain at the helm of a caretaker government till the
new Cabinet is constituted after the election.

Role of the King: Under Article 40(20(b), the Monarch is not bound to accede to the advice of the
PM to dissolve the lower House prematurely.
https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/reflecting-on-the-law/2015/10/29/negotiating-a-vote-of-no-confidence/ 2/4
3/30/2018 Negotiating a vote of no confidence - Reflecting On The Law | The Star Online

His Majesty may, instead, explore the possibility of appointing a new PM who can command the
con dence of the House.

In such a situation, the PM must submit the resignation of his entire government.

Procedure: In most democracies, time limits exist for proposing motions of no con dence with a vote
allowed only once every three, four or six months.

The introduction of the motion requires prescribed support. In India, it is 50 members; in Italy one-
tenth of the members; in Australia 76.

In the UK, by convention a no-con dence vote takes precedence over normal parliamentary
business. In Malaysia, however, Standing Order 15(1) of the Dewan Rakyat provides that
government business shall have priority.

Despite the Constitution’s Article 43(4), the Dewan Rakyat has no speci c procedure for a vote of no
con dence. However, use could be made of Standing Orders 26-27 which permit Motions after a
notice of 14 days.

Ef cacy: Introducing a vote of no con dence has its limitations. In two-party states, such motions
rarely succeed because party discipline is suf cient to allow a majority party or coalition to defeat
the motion.

However, if the government consists of a coalition and a faction defects, that faction can break the
government without having the means to make a new government. Such instability is written into
Westminster systems.

A government defeated on an issue of con dence may not resign but may put the issue before the
House a second time. In the 70s, British Prime Minister John Major lost the vote on the Maastricht
Treaty but after a threat to dissolve the House, put the matter to vote again and won.

In 1986, Thatcher was defeated over the Shops Bill 1986. She accepted the vote and remained in
power.

So despite its role in enforcing responsibility in government, there is much uncertainty that
surrounds the Westminster technique of a vote of no con dence.

Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM. The views expressed are entirely the writer’s own.

TAGS / KEYWORDS:

Views , Shad Faruqi

Shad Saleem Faruqi

https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/reflecting-on-the-law/2015/10/29/negotiating-a-vote-of-no-confidence/ 3/4
3/30/2018 Negotiating a vote of no confidence - Reflecting On The Law | The Star Online

   
Related News
REFLECTING ON THE LAW 01 Feb ONE MAN'S MEAT 24 Mar 2018 ANALYSIS 18 Mar 2018
2018 Different bubbles, Not feeling the mood yet
Hearing the call of justice different stories
and acting on it

Copyright © 1995-2018 Star Media Group Berhad (ROC 10894D)

https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/reflecting-on-the-law/2015/10/29/negotiating-a-vote-of-no-confidence/ 4/4