Office Of The Deputy Governor Affirmation And Letter Of Acceptance: Fill & Download for Free

Why would a divorced couple remarry whilst having irreconcilable differences?SIA and MAS were once MSA, one of the last vestiges connecting both countries post-Singapore independence.SAYING NO TO SINGAPOREDr Goh Keng Swee, Singapore’s deputy prime minister, asked if I would serve as chairman of Malaysia-Singapore Airlines (MSA). The Malaysian Government had proposed Dr Lim Swee Aun, the former Minister of Commerce and Industry, who had failed to get re-elected in the elections of May 1969. “We do not like him,” said Keng Swee. “But he’s not a bad fellow,” I replied. “Oh, never!” thundered Keng Swee. I said, “No, no. I’m overworked and underpaid by my own company.”I was joking, though it was true that I hardly had a moment’s rest in those days. I told him I couldn’t take the job, because I didn’t have the time to do it justice and didn’t know the airline business. I don’t think anybody had talked to Singapore Government leaders like that. They were already known to be very fierce. As I walked towards the door, Keng Swee said, “Well, you know there are hardly any links left between Malaysia and Singapore. If you don’t want to serve, then this link will also go.” It was just like a scene in a Hollywood film. Two steps from the door, I wheeled around and asked, “Are you telling me that if I take the job, that link will be preserved?” “Yes.” Again, I felt I had no choice. “If I agree to take the job, what do I need to do?” “Simple things. First, go to see Tunku Abdul Rahman and [Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Razak Hussein] and tell them we gave you an indication that you’re acceptable to us.” “You mean I have to sell myself to my own leaders?” When he replied in the affirmative, I said, “Give me time to think about it. This is getting very sticky.”So I went away and called up mother. I explained the situation to her. She said, “Well, if you can help preserve the link, then do it, but for one term only.”We belonged to a generation when Malaya and Singapore was one homogenous territory, and felt very strongly that ties should be preserved. So I called Keng Swee and told him that, subject to securing approval in Malaysia, I was prepared to accept the MSA chairmanship for one three-year term. A day or two later I made appointments in Kuala Lumpur and went up.Relations between Singapore and Malaysia have always been uneasy. I saw signs even during my Raffles College days. Nine out of every 10 students from Singapore could be called city-slickers. They were keen to know who your parents and grandparents were, and whether they were rich. By and large, those students who came from Malaya had rural backgrounds. They were usually very charming and uninterested in your wealth or status in life. They were at college just to study and to make friends.Those of us Chinese from Johor had learned to live much more comfortably with Malays. There was far more give and take. Now relations between Singapore and Malaysia were strained. Singapore felt that I could play a diplomatic role; they knew that I was well connected with the Malaysian Government. I was in Raffles College when Razak was there. In fact, I think two-thirds or three-quarters of the top civil servants in Malaysia had been at Raffles College when I was there; many of the others were in school with me in Johor Bahru.I first went to see my very close friend Tun Ismail in Kuala Lumpur. He said, “Robert, if you’ve decided to take it on, take it on, but I don’t know whether you can push it through with Tunku.”I went to Tunku’s house at 9am and was kept waiting for about half an hour. He was a late starter. Then Tunku emerged – it was a big, rambling house – and entered the living room where I was waiting. “Ah, Kuok, Kuok. I know you. Your brother [Philip] is one of our ambassadors.” I said, “Yes, Sir.” “What’s this about?” he asked. “You want to become Chairman of MSA?” I responded, “It’s not that I want to, Tunku …”He didn’t sound too enthusiastic about my taking on this role. He made some remarks about the problems he was having with Singapore. I kept quiet, since it was not for me to say anything. Then I prodded him a bit. “Sir, do you mind if we come back to the subject?” In the end, he said, “OK, Kuok. If you want the job, take it. It doesn’t matter to me.” So I accepted the position of Chairman of MSA.THE JOB – AND THE BICKERING – BEGINSThe board of 15 directors comprised one chairman, four directors nominated by the Malaysian Government, another four by the Singapore Government, one director from Straits Steamship (then a British shipping company controlled by Blue Funnel Group), two directors each from British Airways and Qantas Airways and the managing director, who was on loan from British Airways.So there were six white men, eight Malaysians and Singaporeans, and myself, a Malaysian. You couldn’t have had worse bickering than between the Singapore and Malaysian Government-nominated directors. If one side raised a point and asked for a resolution to be passed, the other side would object. Each side tried to peel off the skin to see what hidden agenda existed under that resolution. The meetings would start at 9:30am, and quite often I couldn’t wind them up until 7:30pm, this at a time when I was in the thick of my sugar business. I was fortunate that my health held up. I was not just chairman of the Board. I constantly had to make peace between the directors from the two governments. I tried every fair and reasonable device I could think of. The evening before a board meeting, I would host a dinner for just the eight government directors and the company secretary.During dinner I would work on them to make peace. “Tomorrow, these are the thorny items on the agenda,” I would explain. “Please try to understand both sides.” Sometimes, I would obtain a semblance of agreement, only to have bickering erupt at the board meeting the following day. The articles of incorporation granted each of the eight a veto, so I was running a company with eight vetoes. It was horrendous! But I stuck with it for nearly two years. I should mention that some of the conflicts I had were with one Western director in particular. When I was chairman, the managing director and CEO was David Craig, who came from British Airways. I had acrimonious exchanges with him. He tried very hard to ingratiate himself into the good books of the Malaysian directors, since the Singapore directors were very rigid and severe managers.EXPENSIVE EUROPEAN EXPATSWhenever David wasn’t performing, they were severe, and so he ran to the Malaysian side for protection. He found the Malaysian directors by and large convenient pillars behind which he could hide. I tried to haul him out from hiding, and our relationship soured. One day, I was in the MSA office on Robinson Road in Singapore, which was a much grander office space than my own humble sugartrading cubbyhole. David spoke to me about engaging expensive European expatriates for the airline. I asked what was wrong with engaging pilots from Burma, which at that time, under the military regime of Ne Win, was training pilots and sending some of them to aeronautical schools in England. He retorted, “Oh, no, no. Only British pilots are safe.” I pointed out that some of our commanders here were Chinese from the Malay Peninsula. He responded that there were too few. Then I suggested he try Indonesia, since Garuda was a relatively seasoned airline. He responded, “Ah, these guys land their planes in the ocean and in jungles and kill all their passengers.” I rounded on him: “Aren’t you being racist?” I noted that a Qantas or British Airways plane piloted by whites had crashed in Singapore’s Kallang Basin Airport. We had a very rough exchange. He had his agenda. When I took the job, I had no agenda whatsoever. I just wanted harmony between Malaysia and Singapore.Meanwhile, the Singapore Government, which was very good with its abacus, was analysing the economics of the airline industry. They began to realise that the Malaysian domestic routes were profitmaking, but looking into the future, they could not see such air travel as big-scale business. The international airport in Singapore, and the international traffic, was really the jewel in the crown of the airline industry in the Malaysia/Singapore region. So the Singapore Government felt it would be useful to break Malaysia-Singapore Airlines into two and let each country go its own way. The Board meetings grew increasingly acrimonious. I made an appointment to see Goh Keng Swee to appeal to him to hold back his aggressive Singapore directors. I hinted that the game was getting very one-sided. I was acting as referee, but I was seeing the poor Malaysian directors slaughtered at every meeting because the Singapore directors had minds as sharp as razors. In fairness, I must say the contribution to running the airline properly and efficiently came almost entirely from the Singapore side. The Malaysian side was too subjective and often allowed their feelings to influence their comments. The writing was on the wall: the airline would separate. Now, I’m sort of a bulldog. When I want to do something, I am very tenacious. But serving as chairman of MSA was a thankless task and I was working like a slave, virtually day and night, in addition to juggling all my other balls.TIME TO RESIGNMoreover, I had been under the impression that this link between the two countries would be preserved. Now that the decision to split was imminent, I decided to pen a resignation letter that they could not refuse. But how do you write two lines of English words which say just that and nothing more? It took me two days to come up with those two lines. Then there was silence for three or four months.The Minister of Finance of Singapore then was Hon Sui Sen, one of the finest men to serve as a cabinet minister from the creation of the island state of Singapore to this day. Born in Penang, he graduated in science from Raffles College about two years before I entered the school. Then came one of the nicest letters I have received in my life. It was penned by Hon Sui Sen himself, and said words to this effect: “I apologise for taking so long to reply. The reason it took so long was we could not find the right successor. This in itself is a compliment to you and what you have done for all of us. Following considerable discussion between the two governments, we have finally come up with a formula of one Chairman from each side to co-chair the board.”They could not have asked for a more classic mongoose and cobra arrangement. The individuals they picked fought each other tooth and nail. When I stepped off, I stepped off completely. I even shut my mind to the whole matter.The Malaysian Government chose Tun Ismail Ali, then Central Bank Governor. The Singapore side picked Joe Pillay, who had been a Singapore director of MSA from the day that I joined the board. In one sense, you could say Joe Pillay gave me the most trouble. In another sense, you could say he was the single most efficient director on the board. I admired his tremendous intellect, an intellect that had no superior in the Singapore/Malaysia region. His grasp of economics and cost accounting was fantastic.I learned from him, watching the way he worked at his job. But he was rather highly strung. Joe is a lovely human being and a gentleman, but when it came to protecting his nation’s interest and discharging his job, he could come out unnecessarily aggressive. I remember one unpleasant exchange between Basil Bampfield, a British Airways-appointed director, and Joe Pillay at a board meeting. Joe told Basil that he should go back to British Airways and Qantas and tell them that some of the existing arrangements were unfair, and that the two airlines should make concessions to MSA. At the next meeting, Basil reported that, on behalf of British Airways and Qantas, he was authorised to agree to every request made at the preceding meeting.I said, “This is amazingly good news. May I on behalf of all of us make a motion to express our thanks to them?” Joe Pillay interrupted, “No! It is ours by right and we should have got it long ago.” I appealed to Joe. Why cry over the past, I thought. Basil Bampfield was a fine English gentleman in an invidious job. He must have gone back and argued MSA’s case forcefully. What the two co-chairmen presided over was like a funeral. To dismantle and separate the whole company was like performing surgery on Siamese twins. It took them a long time to carry out the operation.—Robert Kuok, A MemoirRobert Kuok, perhaps the most astute businessman of his generation within the Peninsula, couldn’t preserve the marriage, despite being arm-twisted into the role by none other than Goh Keng Swee himself.After almost 50 years, when one airline has been run into the ground despite the backing of a national oil producer, we expect the successful ex-spouse who doesn’t see eye to eye to swoop in and save her from drowning?Not gonna happen, even if hell freezes over.Dream on, Mr. Maybank analyst.

Britons who feel outraged that the new Prime Minister might “prorogue” Parliament in order to bring about a “no deal” Brexit - to use the power to “prorogue” as a means of silencing opposition to a Ministerial policy - should look back with greater sympathy upon the American colonists of the pre-Declaration of Independence period.The first five specific grievances charged against King George III name his interference with the sitting, deliberating, and law-making activities of the elected colonial legislative assemblies.In the American federal and state governmental systems, there is no power to “prorogue,” and indeed, American readers will require an explanation of what “prorogue” means.In the British system - whose formalities exist today - no legislature is a law-making body. It is, instead a law-recommending body. The entity that makes laws is the Crown. British constitutional practice ensures that the Crown always adopts the recommendations made jointly by the Commons and the Lords (although there is a rarely-used procedure where the Lords are bypassed) and thus, in effect, the Parliament does make the laws.In America under the federal and state systems, the legislatures are the real lawmaking bodies. Laws become laws unless the President or the Governor vetoes them. Signature, though mandated as a duty upon the President, is not necessary for a Congressional bill to become law; the bill can sit unsigned on the President’s desk for ten days and, provided that Congress remains in session during those ten days, it becomes law without any action by the President.The American system of government has this fundamental feature precisely because of the terrible experience the Americans suffered under the British system, including the power to “prorogue.”Now, it appears, the British people object as strenuously to this system in 2019, as the Americans did in 1776.In the American colonial period, in the eight colonies wherein the king (by his ministers) appointed the governors, there was no custom and no assurance that the governor would in fact adopt every law-recommendation from the Assembly and the Council.Because in these royal-governor colonies a colonial Assembly was considered a law-recommending body, not a law-making body, the concept was that it sat only during such periods as the governor felt it necessary to make new laws. If the governor did not feel the necessity for any law-recommendations, he could send the legislators home, until he might feel the need of them again.This power to suspend the sitting of the legislature is called the power to “prorogue.” The legislators remain in-office, and can reconvene on call of the Governor without a re-election, but they cannot meet, cannot vote on and adopt resolutions, cannot maintain sitting committees.A second power of such Royal Governors was the power to “dissolve” the legislature. In Britain today, the “Fixed-term Parliament Act” is intended to wipe-out this power, but it was a second power held by a Royal Colonial Governor, which also had the effect of ending the ability of the legislature to sit, vote recommended laws, vote resolutions, etc. The difference between “prorogue” and “dissolve” was that after a dissolution, all legislators were out-of-office, and no legislature could convene until there had been a general colony-wide election - and no such election could occur unless the Royal Governor called for it to occur, by issuing “writs of election” to the various legislative districts.A third power of such Royal Governors was the power to specify the location where the legislature would convene. In Massachusetts in 1772–1773, the Royal Governor used this power to pick inconvenient places, effectively harassing the legislators by making their lives more difficult, unless they agreed to vote what the Governor wanted, and chose not to vote things the Governor opposed.In the long study I researched in 2016–2017, and which SSRN posted in September 2017, I report in detail all of these “prorogue,” “dissolve,” and “inconvenient location” actions, beginning in 1768, and then summarize the last date on which each colonial legislature met, at pages 529–532, as follows.The list omits Connecticut and Rhode Island, whose governors were elected, and which never suspending sittings of their legislatures. Maryland and Pennsylvania, which included Delaware, had appointed governors, but by authority of each respective “proprietary” family, and thus these were not Royal Governors.After the date noted, that colony’s legislature never again met.Appointed-Governor-Ordered Assembly Shut-Downs Before the First Continental Congress.South Carolina: 29 August 1770.Tax function of government terminated by appointed Royal Council & Lt. Gov. Bull, over contribution for Wilkes campaign for Parliament. House not dissolved, but with tax-raising to fund expenses of colony government terminated, government functioning was ended. On August 2, 1774, the lawful House would ratify the election of delegates to the 1st Continental Congress as done by an extra-legal convention in early July 1774, without obstruction by native-born Lt. Governor William Bull, in the absence of appointed governor Lord William Campbell, who had not yet arrived to take up his office.Maryland: 19 April 1774.Last session adjourned normally, and not over freedom of speech issue. The lawful House had chosen a Committee of Correspondence on October 15, 1773, without being prorogued or dissolved by appointed proprietary Governor Eden. Governor Eden left for Britain in late May, 1774, and the House was not in session for the election of delegates to the 1st Continental Congress. Never reconvened by Gov. Eden after his return from London on November 8, 1774. Governor Eden never took any actions against the extra-legal Convention either; in substance he preemptively left his lawful government in “shut-down mode” as of April 19, 1774, stayed in Maryland, and allowed the people of Maryland to grow a replacement.Virginia: 26 May 1774.Dissolved by Governor Dunmore, to suppress words in resolution for a fast regarding Boston Port Act. This prevented the elected House from electing delegates to the 1st Continental Congress, which was done by an extra-legal convention on August 1, 1774. Governor Dunmore would not reconvene the House until June 1, 1775, and then a week later, Dunmore himself fled, leaving the House without a Governor. The House would adjourn itself on June 24, never to meet again (too few members would attend on the chosen reconvene date to make quorum). Dunmore, from a warship offshore, would act vigorously against the growth of the replacement Convention.New Hampshire: 8 June 1774.Dissolved by Governor Wentworth, to prevent electing delegates to 1st Continental Congress; never again re-elected and reconvened. Wentworth would flee to Boston under the protection of Gage, leaving no obstruction to the growth of the replacement Congress.Massachusetts: 17 June 1774.Dissolved by Governor Gage, to prevent funding expenses of delegates elected to 1st Continental Congress; Gage would have dissolved the House prior to its electing delegates, but the House acted too quickly for him to do so. Never again re-elected and reconvened. Gage, from fortified Boston and by warships, would act vigorously against the growth of the replacement Congress.Appointed-Governor-Ordered Assembly Shut-Downs After the First Continental Congress.Georgia: 10 February 1775.Prorogued, not dissolved, by Governor Wright, to prevent electing delegates to 2nd Continental Congress. It would reconvene. Royal vs. resistance authority would see-saw in Georgia.New York: 3 April 1775.Last session adjourned normally, and not over freedom of speech issue. Never shut-down over free speech, because there was never a majority in the elected Assembly that voted any speech or actions offensive to the ministers, except a March 25, 1775 Petition to the King. The Assembly did form a Committee of Correspondence (January 20, 1774) but never adopted any statements, nor elected delegates to either Continental Congress, and thus did not suffer any shut-downs. Governor Tryon having been out of the colony from April 7, 1774, until mid-June 1775, it would be Lt. Gov. Colden who would call the Assembly into session on January 10, 1775. During this session Jan. 10 to April 3, 1775, the lawful Assembly rejected repeated motions (Jan. 26, Feb. 17, Feb. 21) to affirm the actions of the First Continental Congress, and refused to appoint delegates to the Second Continental Congress (Feb. 23). The lawful New York Assembly shared the same sense of grievances and principles as the other colonies, but rejected the strategy of a unifying but “extra-legal” Continental Congress. Instead, it adopted a “colony-only” petition to the King (March 25), in the belief that the ministers were sincere in stating that a colony-only petition would be heard. As we will see, the ministers lied. After approving this petition the Assembly adjourned April 3, 1775 – shortly before the fighting at Lexington & Concord on April 19, 1775. The lawful New York Assembly never convened again. Governor Tryon, on his return in mid-June 1775, would try to act against the growth of the replacement Congress.North Carolina: 8 April 1775.Dissolved by Governor Martin, because the representatives had simultaneously participated in an extra-legal Provincial Congress; never again re-elected and reconvened. Martin, from a warship offshore, would act vigorously against the growth of the replacement Congress.Appointed-Governor-Ordered Assembly Shut-Downs After the Second Continental Congress:New Jersey: 6 December 1775.Never shut-down over free speech, even though it formed a Committee of Correspondence (February 8, 1774). The lawful House was adjourned from March 11, 1774, to January 11, 1775, so the election of delegates for the 1st Continental Congress was by the extra-legal New Jersey Convention on July 23, 1774. The lawful House elected the same persons delegates to the 2nd Continental Congress, by its own vote on Jan. 26, 1775, and also ratified the actions of the 1st Continental Congress, without any “shut down” actions by Governor William Franklin, who prorogued the session on February 13, 1775, after completing the normal course of legislative business, and adopting a Petition to the king. On May 15, 1775, Governor Franklin reconvened the lawful Assembly to consider “Lord North’s Conciliatory Resolution,” but the Assembly chose to defer to the Second Continental Congress, which would condemn the “Conciliatory Resolution” on July 31, 1775. On November 15, 1775 Governor Franklin again reconvened the Assembly, urging the lawful elected Representatives to reject Congress’rejection, and accept the “Conciliatory Resolution;” after emergency personal appearances by John Jay, John Dickinson, and George Wyeth on December 6, 1775, the Assembly chose to take no action, and adjourned, never to reconvene. The resistance would soon put Governor Franklin under house arrest, preventing his undertaking further efforts to discredit the Continental Congress.Pennsylvania:Never shut-down over free speech, or any other reason. It did not form a Committee of Correspondence but did elect delegates to the 1st Continental Congress (July 22, 1774). It elected delegates to the 2nd Continental Congress (Dec. 15, 1774). The lawful House of Assembly convened after this, on Feb. 20 to March 18, 1775, and then reconvened on May 1, 1775. Governor Penn offered to them “Lord North’s Conciliatory resolution,” which the House rejected on May 4; on May 9 the House added deputies, and adopted instructions to those deputies. House Speaker John Morton offered the House’s own meeting-room in the State House for the Second Continental Congress, and the House moved itself upstairs to a smaller room, where it was in session while the Second Continental Congress was in session; Governor Penn was also in the same building. The House would continue to meet sporadically through the entire resistance period and into September 1776, and Governor Penn took no actions against the lawful Pennsylvania House for any of this.Delaware:Never shut-down over free speech, or any other reason. It formed a Committee of Correspondence on October 23, 1773, and, although not formally convened, met and elected delegates to the 1st Continental Congress (August 1, 1774). Governor Penn never criticized them or penalized them for this extra-legal action. On March 15, 1775, the House approved of its actions of August 1774, and also approved of the actions of the First Continental Congress; the next day, March 16, the House elected delegates to the 2nd Continental Congress. On March 29, 1775, the House adopted instructions to its delegates. The House met again in June 1775, and August 1775, and October 1775, and June 1776, and July 1776, all without any obstruction or condemnation by Proprietary Governor Penn, until it replaced itself with a new constitutional government.In the Declaration of Independence, the very first five grievances focus directly on King George III’s suppression of American colonial legislatures:He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.Britons today who object to the prospect of the “prorogue” power used to bring about a “no deal Brexit” now, at long last, understand why the Americans from 1766 through 1776 were so firm in resistance to Parliament and ultimately, to the King, as at last to declare independence from him.A particularly apt example of the use of the power to “prorogue” to suppress the dissent of elected representatives comes from 1768, when the Colony Minister, Lord Hillsborough, ordered all colonial governors to “prorogue” their assemblies if the assemblies gave any sign of being about to vote against Parliament’s claim to have all lawmaking power in America. The circumstances justify your brief attention; I researched this in detail in my 2017 study.In 1765, Parliament adopted a “Stamp Act” that had the effect of imposing taxes throughout the colonies; unexpected vociferous colonial opposition forced Parliament to repeal the tax, but Parliament simultaneously in March 1766 adopted a “Declaratory Act” proclaiming that the Parliament of Great Britain had all lawmaking power in the colonies, and overrode all colonial assemblies.The colonists rejected the legal and constitutional legitimacy of this; I have mentioned the merits of their opposition in other Quora answers in recent days, but the merits are not relevant to the precise point we are looking at here. Suffice it to say, the colonists disagreed with Parliament’s claim. Parliament tried adopting several different subsequent tax acts, which also provoked colonial condemnation.In particular, on February 11, 1768, the Massachusetts House adopted a statement that it sent to all other colony assemblies, in what was called a “circular letter.” The letter is at pages 189–191 of my study; a key section is this:“[H]is Majesty’s American subjects, who acknowledge themselves bound by the ties of allegiance, have an equitable claim to the full enjoyment of the fundamental rules of the British constitution; that it is an essential, unalterable right in nature, engrafted into the British constitution, as a fundamental law, and ever held sacred and irrevocable by the subjects within the realm, that what a man has honestly acquired is absolutely his own, which he may freely give, but cannot be taken from him without his consent; that the American subjects may, therefore, exclusive of any consideration of charter rights, with a decent firmness, adapted to the character of free men and subjects, assert this natural and constitutional right. It is, moreover, their [the Massachusetts House] humble opinion, which they express with the greatest deference to the wisdom of the Parliament, that the Acts made there [in Parliament], imposing duties on the people of this province, with the sole and express purpose of raising a revenue, are infringements of their natural and constitutional rights; because, as they are not represented in the British Parliament, his Majesty’s commons in Britain, by those Acts, grant their property without their consent.”On April 21, 1768, on receiving a copy of the Massachusetts “circular letter,” the Colony Minister, Lord Hillsborough, wrote his own “circular letter” to the governors of the American colonies, demanding that every elected representative House of Assembly in America should treat the Massachusetts House’s February 11, 1768, circular letter with contempt, and that if any elected Assembly tried to honor it, the governor was to immediately prorogue the assembly. Lord Hillsborough’s letter is in my study at pages 197–198:“I have his Majesty’s commands to transmit to you the enclosed copy of a letter from the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the colony of Massachusetts Bay [February 11, 1768], addressed by order of that House to the Speaker of the Assembly of each colony upon the continent of North America.“As his Majesty considers this measure to be of a most dangerous and factious tendency, calculated to inflame the minds of his good subjects in the colonies, to promote an unwarrantable combination, and to excite and encourage an open opposition to and denial of the authority of Parliament, and to subvert the true principles of the constitution, it is his Majesty’s pleasure that you should, immediately upon the receipt hereof, exert your utmost influence to defeat this flagitious attempt to disturb the public peace, by prevailing upon the Assembly of your province to take no notice of it, which will be treating it with the contempt it deserves.…“[I]f notwithstanding these expectations and your most earnest endeavours, there should appear in the Assembly of your Province, a disposition to receive or give an countenance to this seditious paper, it will be your duty to prevent any proceeding upon it, by an immediate prorogation or dissolution.”To list here in this Quora answer the results of Lord Hillsborough’s demand that very Governor prorogue every assembly that showed notice and respect to the Massachusetts February 11, 1768 letter would make this answer much too long; anyone interested can download my study from SSRN, or request the most recent typo-corrected copy from me in pdf.The relevant point here is that on April 21, 1768, Lord Hillsborough, a high Minister of the Crown, sought to use the power to “prorogue” as a means to silence the voices of the people’s elected representatives, on an issue of much greater importance than “Brexit:” the issue of the legitimacy of elective representative self-government. This produced such distaste among Americans as to ensure that no power to “prorogue” exists in any American government.And the power to “prorogue” ought not exist in the United Kingdom either.One last note: the question notes that a former Prime Minister is considering going to the judiciary for a judicial injunction preventing the sitting Prime Minister from requesting the Crown to prorogue. Do Britons realize just how American that is - and how so totally not British? The idea that a judge could intercept the action of a Prime Minister in speaking to the Crown - I like it, but then I am an American.But in all of British governmental practice, the idea is extraordinary. It is a change Britain ought to make, despite it being an American-style importation into the British government.

From Wikipedia. You can read more there.In 1820 the Constitutionalist Revolution erupted in Portugal. The movement initiated by the liberal constitutionalists resulted in the meeting of the Cortes (or Constituent Assembly), that would have to create the kingdom's first constitution.[2][3] The Cortes at the same time demanded the return of King Dom John VI, who had been living in Brazil since 1808, who elevated Brazil to a kingdom as part of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves in 1815 and who nominated his son and heir prince Dom Pedro as regent, to govern Brazil in his place on 7 March 1821.[4][5] The king left for Europe on 26 April, while Dom Pedro remained in Brazil governing it with the aid of the ministers of the Kingdom (Interior) and Foreign Affairs, of War, of Navy and of Finance.[6][7]The Portuguese military officers headquartered in Brazil were completely sympathetic to the Constitutionalist movement in Portugal.[8] The main leader of the Portuguese officers, General Jorge de Avilez Zuzarte de Sousa Tavares forced the prince to dismiss and banish from the country the ministers of Kingdom and Finance. Both were loyal allies of Pedro, who had become a pawn in the hands of the military.[9] The humiliation suffered by the prince, who swore he would never yield to the pressure of the military again, would have a decisive influence on his abdication ten years later.[10] Meanwhile, on 30 September 1821, the Cortes approved a decree that subordinated the governments of the Brazilian provinces directly to Portugal. Prince Pedro became for all purposes only the governor of the Rio de Janeiro Province.[11][12] Other decrees that came after ordered his return to Europe and also extinguished the judicial courts created by João VI in 1808.[13][14]Dissatisfaction over the Cortes measures among most residents in Brazil (both Brazilian-born and Portuguese-born) rose to a point that it soon became publicly known.[11] Two groups that opposed the Cortes' actions to gradually undermine the Brazilian sovereignty appeared: Liberals led by Joaquim Gonçalves Ledo (which had the support of the Freemasons) and the Bonifacians led by José Bonifácio de Andrada. Both factions had nothing in common in their goals for Brazil, with the sole exception of their desire to keep the country united with Portugal as a sovereign monarchy.[15]Prince Pedro (right) orders Portuguese officer Jorge de Avilez (left) to return to Portugal after his failed rebellion, 8 February 1822. José Bonifácio (in civilian clothes) can be seen next to the prince.The Portuguese deputies of the Cortes showed no respect towards the prince and openly mocked him.[16] And so the loyalty that Pedro had shown towards the Cortes gradually shifted to the Brazilian cause.[13] His wife, princess Leopoldina of Habsburg, favoured the Brazilian side and encouraged him to remain in the country[17] while the Liberals and Bonifacians made open representations. Pedro's reply came on 9 January 1822, who, according to newspapers, spoke: "As it is for the good of all and for the nation's general happiness, I am ready: Tell the people that I will stay".[18]After Pedro's decision to defy the Cortes, around 2,000 men led by Jorge Avilez rioted before concentrating on mount Castelo, which was soon surrounded by 10,000 armed Brazilians, led by the Royal Police Guard.[19] Dom Pedro then "dismissed" the Portuguese commanding general and ordered him to remove his soldiers across the bay to Niterói, where they would await transport to Portugal.[20]Jose Bonifácio was nominated minister of Kingdom and Foreign Affairs on 18 January 1822.[21] Bonifácio soon established a fatherlike relationship with Pedro, who began to consider the experienced statesman his greatest ally.[22] Gonçalves Ledo and the liberals tried to minimize the close relationship between Bonifácio and Pedro offering to the prince the title of Perpetual Defender of Brazil.[23][24] For the liberals, the meeting of a Constituent Assembly for Brazil was necessary, while the Bonifacians preferred that Pedro grant the constitution himself to avoid the possibility of similar anarchy to the one that occurred during the first years of the French Revolution.[23]The prince acquiesced to the liberals’ desires and signed a decree on 3 June 1822 calling for the election of the deputies that would gather in the Constituent and Legislative General Assembly in Brazil.[24][25]Prince Pedro is surrounded by a cheering crowd in São Paulo after giving the news of the Brazilian independence on 7 September 1822.Pedro departed to São Paulo Province to secure the province's loyalty to the Brazilian cause. He reached its capital on 25 August and remained there until 5 September. While on his way back to Rio de Janeiro on 7 September he received mail from José Bonifácio and his wife, Leopoldina.[citation needed] The letter told him that the Cortes had annulled all acts from the Bonifácio cabinet, removed Pedro's remaining powers and ordered him to return to Portugal. It was clear that independence was the only option left. Pedro turned to his companions that included his Guard of Honor and spoke: "Friends, the Portuguese Cortes want to enslave and pursue us. From today on our relations are broken. No ties can unite us anymore" and continued after he pulled out his blue-white armband that symbolized Portugal: "Armbands off, soldiers. Hail to the independence, to freedom and to the separation of Brazil from Portugal!" He unsheathed his sword affirming that "For my blood, my honor, my God, I swear to give Brazil freedom," and later cried out: "Brazilians, Independence or death!". This event is remembered as "Cry of Ipiranga".[26]Returning to the city of São Paulo on the night of 7 September 1822, Pedro and his companions announced the news of Brazilian independence from Portugal. The Prince was received with great popular celebration and was called not only "King of Brazil", but also "Emperor of Brazil".[27][28]Pedro returned to Rio de Janeiro on 14 September and in the following days the liberals had spread pamphlets (written by Joaquim Gonçalves Ledo) that suggested the idea that the Prince should be acclaimed Constitutional Emperor.[27] On 17 September the President of the Municipal Chamber of Rio de Janeiro, Josė Clemente Pereira, sent to the other Chambers of the country the news that the Acclamation would occur in the anniversary of Pedro on 12 October.[29]The official separation would only occur on 22 September 1822 in a letter written by Pedro to João VI. In it, Pedro still calls himself Prince Regent and his father is considered the King of the independent Brazil.[30][31] On 12 October 1822, in the Field of Santana (later known as Field of the Acclamation) Prince Pedro was acclaimed Dom Pedro I, Constitutional Emperor and Perpetual Defender of Brazil. It was at the same time the beginning of Pedro's reign and also of the Empire of Brazil.[32] However, the Emperor made it clear that although he accepted the emperorship, if João VI returned to Brazil he would step down from the throne in favor of his father.[33]The reason for the imperial title was that the title of king would symbolically mean a continuation of the Portuguese dynastic tradition and perhaps of the feared absolutism, while the title of emperor derived from popular acclamation as in Ancient Rome or at least reigning through popular sanction as in the case of Napoleon.[34][35] On 1 December 1822, Pedro I was crowned and consecrated.[36]