There was quiet jubilation and relief among many people when they heard that the Council of Rulers had rejected the government's nominee for the Chief Judge of Malaya (CJM).

It was seen as a sign that the hitherto silent rulers had finally decided to intervene in our fast deteriorating polity. Yes, rule of law under Prime Minister (PM) Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's leadership has gone from bad to worse, with scandal after scandal involving top officials going unpunished.

Where can the people go for redress, and why should we rejoice when the royalty valiantly steps into the ring to restore some sense into a system that has been corrupted by decades of unchallenged power?

Article 40 of the constitution prescribes the functions and power of the King who is bound under Clause (1A) to act in accordance with the cabinet's advice. However, under Clause 1, he is entitled to request 'any information concerning the government of the federation which is available to the cabinet'. This is where the King can exert influence, by demanding input in order to perform his task adequately and with understanding.

The appointment of judges is governed by the Federal Constitution:
- Article 122B(1): All judges are to be appointed by the King 'acting on the advice of the prime minister, after consulting the Council of Rulers'.
- Article 122B(2) and (3): In the case of the CJM, the PM, before tendering his advice to the King, has to consult the Chief Justice and the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak respectively.

If the Rulers are not happy with a nominee, the King may have to juggle between their decision and that of the PM to arrive at a reasonable stand. Even if the Rulers have no objection, the King can still demand input from the PM for proper understanding of the basis of the appointment.

For instance, the King could ask: Why is this candidate selected over more senior judges who are more experienced and command much greater respect? What are the criteria of selection? What is the track record of this candidate, compared to others? Has the legal fraternity been consulted? Which individuals or institutions were consulted and what was their feedback?

If the PM fails to answer these questions fully and accurately, he would be deemed to have breached Article 40(1) and the King need not proceed with the appointment. If the PM provides proper answers, but his rationale is found wanting, shouldn't he feel too ashamed to push through the candidacy?

If the selection process is above board and the candidate is hailed among the legal fraternity as the right choice, is it conceivable that the rulers would reject the choice?

The promotion process in the judiciary is carried out in secrecy and without known criteria, and has been a major blot on the integrity of the judicial system. Despite repeated calls by the Bar Council and by civil society groups for transparency and accountability through a judicial commission to deal with the selection, appointment and promotion of judges, the Barisan Nasional leadership has rejected these outright.

Under these frustrating circumstances, the rulers' objection is most timely. Until such a time that a judicial commission is established, the King and the Council of Rulers can play an important role in ensuring decorum in judicial appointments and promotions by strictly scrutinising the suitability of nominees.

Discretionary power

Indeed the King can similarly exert his benevolent influence as a check-and-balance in other elements of governance. This is because top officials of key institutions are appointed on a similar basis - Attorney-General (AG, Article 145); members of the Election Commission (EC, (Article 114) and Inspector-General of Police (IGP, Article 140). Indeed, in the EC's case, the King need not even consult the PM.

If the King were to exercise strict scrutiny over nominees and demands that they be persons of high integrity, wouldn't it make all the difference to the quality and prestige of the administration?

The King is not entirely without strong bargaining power, as he holds a trump card by way of discretionary powers on the appointment of a PM as stated in Article 43(1)(a); and the withholding of consent for dissolution of Parliament, in Article 55(2) and (3).

Granted, the King does not have absolute discretion in the appointment of a PM, as he is duty-bound to appoint the leader of the political party which has a clear-cut majority in Parliament. The discretionary power becomes pivotal when there is a state of political uncertainty or tussle over who commands the majority. The King then makes the decision.

The King - not the PM - also has unqualified and exclusive discretionary power to dissolve Parliament before the five-year tenure expires.

Given all this, it doesn't pay for the PM to rile up the King over the appointment of judges and key officials of the administration, especially when the PM is conspicuously not on the right side of prudence.

Dubious extension

The examination of these constitutional provisions also raises questions about the indecent haste in extending the tenure of IGP Musa Hassan.

The PM announced this on July 2 although Musa (photo) was still under investigation by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) for alleged corruption and links with underworld kingpins.

As late as July 10, Deputy Internal Security Minister Mohd Johari Baharum had expressed dissatisfaction with explanations provided by the police.

So why was the PM - also internal security minister - so impatient to make such an important decision when the IGP was not due to retire until mid-September? By rushing the announcement, didn't the PM pre-empt the ACA and his deputy in the ministry?

It appears doubtful that the PM had advised the King in advance about extending the IGP's tenure.

The AG subsequently cleared the IGP and two other top officials - former ACA director-general Zulkipli Mat Nor and Johari - of various allegations of corruption and abuse of power - but this has done nothing to remove the stigma because the explanations lacked credibility.

I hope the King insists on an independent inquiry into the various allegations made against the IGP prior to his re-appointment. It is absolutely imperative that the person appointed as IGP should be of unquestionable integrity and competence.

I also appeal to the King to use his wisdom in deliberating the premature dissolution of Parliament which, in all likelihood, will be imminently requested by the PM out of parochial interests of his political coalition and in total disregard for public interest.

I sincerely pray that the King, in exercising his power in this respect, will be guided by what is best for the people.

KIM QUEK is a retired accountant with an interest in current affairs.