[1844] Of creative clarification is like creative accounting, it is bullshit

Old but Wan Azizah said:

SHAH ALAM, 29 Nov 2008: Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) wants to restore the royal veto power and the dignity of the constitutional monarchy.

That restoring of veto power means the Agong will have the discretion to reject certain types of legislation passed in Parliament before they are gazetted and enforced as laws.

“PKR is prepared to restore the immunity of the royalty in the spirit of constitutional monarchy,” she said in her speech at the opening of the party’s fifth national congress here today. [PKR wants royal veto power restored. The Nut Graph. November 29 2008]

This happens after a person belonging to the Negeri Sembilan’s royal house called for the restoration of immunity for the royalty.

Seriously, surely PKR is not that desperate. Surely, after becoming the largest opposition party on the federal level and controlling several state, PKR is not desperate at all.

She later backpedaled:

Later in a press conference, Wan Azizah clarified that the party does not support the restoration of absolute immunity of the royalty as called for by the Regent of Negeri Sembilan, Tunku Naquiyuddin Tuanku Jaafar, recently. [PKR wants royal veto power restored. The Nut Graph. November 29 2008]

Clarified? That is redefinition, not clarification.

Then somebody tried to save the day:

To a question in the press conference, deputy president Dr Syed Husin Ali further explained that the party wants only the restoration of veto legislation power to royalty, and will not touch on restoring royal immunity from prosecution. [PKR wants royal veto power restored. The Nut Graph. November 29 2008]

Yes, I will buy that 100%. Or not.

I find it hard to link restoration of “the immunity of the royalty” to the “restoration of veto legislation power to royalty”. That is one incredibly large leap of logic to make. In fact, the connection sounds more like faith than logic. I am not prepared to do that.

Regardless, much later, according to a constitutional expert, Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi:

”The Agong never had veto power. He could delay a bill, question it, warn and give advice, but if he continued to delay it, he would end up contravening Article 40(1), which states that he is to act in accordance with advice of the cabinet, except on certain provisions where he may use his discretion, under Clause 2 of the same article,” Shad told The Nut Graph. [Agong never had veto power. The Nut Graph. December 3 2008]

I wonder what was PKR trying to achieve?