Of course I agree there is no need for the consent of the MB to appoint a State Secretary as correctly reported by the NST which can be read here. I agree with the AG but the other 2 other persons quoted in the same article are talking nonsense! Why must NST write about facts and craps in the same page, is for them to answer!
BUT, something went wrong or some legal advisors were wrongly appointed when they drafted the State Constitutions. How could it be that there must be 2 Oaths to be taken by the State Secretary before he can effectively perform his function? First The Oath of Office and Loyalty AND then the Oath of Secrecy? The first before the Sultan and the latter before the Menteri Besar!
Didn't they envisage any difficulty in getting it done when they drafted the Constitution in 1993? Or they never expected a recalcitrant person to be appointed an MB?
Didn't they realise that it would have been better that the Oath of Office must incorporate the Oath of Secrecy too? They did well in the Oath of Office for the MB and EXCOs which included the oath of secrecy.
Tapi, kalau mahu salahkan pengubal undang-undang saja, tak patut. Sebelum ia jadi undang-undang, ia adalah Rang Undang-undang yang dibentang di Dewan Undangan Negeri dulu. Di Dewan Undangan Negeri, Wakil Rakyat yang berfungsi sebagai pengubal undang-undang, tak buat homework kah? Tak baca, tak fikir dulu? Apa pun rang undang-undang, yang dibentangkan, Wakil Rakyat terus setuju? Tiada bantahan, tiada cadangan pindaan?
Now we know, to be Wakil Rakyat is not for gullible or public speakers who don't read! Speaking at public rallies with shouts of "takbir" and "reformasi" is easy. Reading and thinking about consequences are not as easy! Will it be worst if Wakil Rakyats are also street demonstrators?