A number of Opposition members have disputed Universiti Teknologi Mara's Professor of Law Shad S. Faruqi's contention that Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's advice to the Agong on summoning Parliament did not violate the Constitution.

Shad's article headlined "Dr Mahathir's advice on summoning Parliament was constitutional" appeared in the "Comment" section of the New Straits Times on Dec 25.

"Advising the Yang di Pertuan Agong to summon a duly elected Parliament so that the will of the electorate can find expression in the legislature can hardly be described as an improper or drastic exercise of the powers of a caretaker government," wrote Shad.

Shad argued that "no provision of the Constitution was violated because the Constitution does not impose any fetters on the powers of the interim government".

"The Constitution does not specify the nature and extent of, or the limits on the powers of the caretaker government but provides that the caretaker PM shall not hold office after the beginning of the next session of Parliament unless he has been re-elected to the new House and re-appointed as PM, " he wrote.

However, Hatta Ramli, political secretary of Opposition Leader Fadzil Noor, argued that precisely because there was no mention of a caretaker government in the Constitution, Mahathir did not have the power to advise the Agong on summoning Parliament.

"The new Cabinet should have been formed and had its first meeting before the notice of the first Parliamentary meeting was issued," he told malaysiakini. He added that the Prime Minister should abide to the proper procedures of the Parliamentary Standing Orders and the Constitution.

DAP Secretary General and Kota Melaka MP Kerk Kim Hock said that it was accepted practice and principle in a parliamentary democracy that a caretaker government merely performs the rudimentary duties of the state during the transition period from the dissolution of Parliament to the establishment of a new Cabinet.

"As such, the Prime Minister had overstepped the limits and bounds of a caretaker PM when he advised the King to convene the Parliament meetings before the formation of the new Cabinet," he said.

In his article, however, Shad argued that "at the time he (Mahathir) gave his advice, he and his coalition had already won the general election and he was, besides being the head of the interim government, also the Prime Minister-designate of the new government though he had not yet been sworn in."

He added that "summoning a Parliament to session after a mere 39 days when a 120-day gap is permitted is a matter for commendation and not condemnation."

Shad also said that there were emergency grounds for the convening of the Dewan Rakyat as a temporary budget had to be provided for and the government had chosen to seek an early return of Parliament to get its seal of approval to the budget instead of invoking emergency measures.

This argument was rejected by former opposition leader and DAP Chairman Lim Kit Siang.

"The 'emergency' situation is solely the creation of Dr Mahathir in his most irresponsible timing of the 10th general election to deny 680,000 new voters from exercising their constitutional right to vote," he said. If Mahathir had not suspended the Budget 2000 debate in November, then such an "emergency" situation would not exist.

Lim had earlier stated that he would seek a wide consultation beginning with two former Lord Presidents, Tun Suffian and Tun Salleh Abas, to determine whether to take legal action to challenge the legality and constitutionality of the Dec 20 sitting of the Parliament.

The issue on the constitutionality of the new Parliament had led to the walkout of 43 Opposition MPs on the first day of the parliamentary sitting.

Attempts by malaysiakini to reach Shad for his response had however been unsuccessful.