Not only is it not unconstitutional to demand for the prime minister to resign, it is actually perfectly legitimate under the democratic system to do so, said Universiti Malaya associate law professor Azmi Sharom.

The people cannot force the prime minister to step down, he said, but MPs can do so through a no-confidence vote, which is part of parliamentary democracy.

However, he said that MPs need to be able to know what their constituents think of the prime minister if they want to table a vote of no-confidence.

“When we elect people, we elect MPs and then whoever has confidence of the House becomes prime minister. That’s in the (federal) constitution.

“How on earth will the MPs figure out whether they have confidence in the prime minister or not?

“One of the ways is if your constituents tell you, ‘We don’t like this dude anymore’.

“So it’s perfectly within our democratic system for people to say we don’t like this prime minister anymore, please step down,” Azmi explained at a public forum on Section 124 of the Penal Code and parliamentary democracy, which was organised by the Malaysian Bar Council in Kuala Lumpur today.

He cited the example of the #TangkapNajib rally in front of Sogo shopping mall last Aug 1, which called for the resignation of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

Most of the demonstrators of that rally including one of his students were arrested and investigated under Section 124B of the Penal Code for ‘activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy’.

‘Activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy’ is defined in Section 130 of the Penal Code as ‘an activity carried by a person designed to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by violent or unconstitutional means’.

Standing with a placard which reads ‘Undur Najib’ cannot be seen as violent by any stretch of the imagination, Azmi said.

“Maybe violent to his delicate soul. But come on, physically violent?” he said.

“So how is that (demonstration) threatening parliamentary democracy?

“If we don’t tell our MPs what we want, how are they supposed to know?” he added.

Definition vague

Azmi also pointed out that because the definition of parliamentary democracy is so vague, there cannot really be a definition of a threat to parliamentary democracy.

Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo, who was one of the speakers at the forum, agreed that the definition in Section 124 is too broad and questioned to what extent is something considered unconstitutional.

He also reminded that in 2012, then de facto law minister Nazri Aziz had said that the phrase ‘detrimental to parliamentary democracy’ is not a phrase that is to be used for the purposes of political offences or differences.

“According to Nazri, these laws are supposed to protect people like me: MPs who are also from the opposition.

“Do you see that happening? I’ll leave that for you to decide,” he said.

Meanwhile, another speaker at the forum, law professor Gurdial Singh Nijar said that ‘national security’ is also not defined properly in the law.

“As far as it is concerned, it (the amendments) is intended to protect national security. The provision itself is flawed and therefore becomes entirely unconstitutional,” he said.

The amendments to Section 124B through 124N of the Penal Code were first tabled by Nazri in Parliament on April 10, 2012, to deal with offences which used to be handled under the Internal Security Act (ISA) with some modifications.