The DPM dilemma

StickyUncategorized

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has expressed hopes that the unity government will finish its full term. That’s left to be seen.

Anwar and his supporters want to project a narrative that the threat to the unity government originates externally. That may be true if Anwar’s leadership does not provide ammunition for detractors to seek an alternative.

Some of the decisions Anwar has made have far-reaching repercussions and they need to be examined to see if they put the nation and its institutions at risk. If they have, then MPs are justified and should seek a change of administration or a change of prime minister. If MPs don’t, they will not be living up to the expectations of the voters.

Consider the current state of the national leadership. The nation is now poised to have a prime minister who is facing 47 corruption charges in court involving Yayasan Akalbudi. Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, who is facing these charges, is one of the two current deputy prime ministers. He is more senior in terms of rank and experience than the other DPM, Fadillah Yusof, who is from Gabungan Parti Sarawak(GPS).

Should anything happen to Anwar or he voluntarily resigns, who will take over? Zahid? Did the people vote for this? Did he get the mandate of the people or was this a decision that Anwar for his own reasons has imposed on the nation? Is this not risking the reputation of the nation and good governance that this nation is aspiring for?

If the unity government has set in place a succession plan in which Zahid is not the candidate to take over the premiership mid-term, the people need to know about it. But, if the candidate is Zahid, it is not the will of the people and Anwar’s decision threatens our democratic system of government.

No one should play God and believe fate will be in his or her favour. He or she should understand human limitations and make provisions for them. If anything happens to Anwar now, the nation would be stuck with an undesirable and unwanted prime minister — thanks to Anwar.

The people need to understand the gravity of the situation that Anwar has put the nation in.

Anwar has justified his decision by arguing that one is innocent until proven guilty. If so, march into court in the confidence that one is innocent and one has the evidence to prove it.

If a defendant is finding ways to escape conviction — as Zahid has attempted by sending a letter of representation to the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) requesting that the AGC drop the 47 charges against him in the Yayasan Akalbudi case — it would only raise public suspicion that he doesn’t think he is innocent.

In addition, Zahid’s party, Umno, has sent a request to the king for a royal pardon for its adviser, Najib Razak, who is in jail for his involvement in the SRC International case. The king should not forward the request to the Pardons Board of which he is chairman because, under the constitution, a political party can’t seek a pardon for any of its convicted members. That’s not the correct procedure. Yet, Zahid sidestepped the correct procedure to get what he wants. And Anwar kept his silence.

How could Anwar allow his DPM to disrespect the constitution and get away with it? It is dangerous to have such a politician in the Cabinet as he or she may use his or her influence and position to get what he/she wants and it may not be what the people want.

Zahid and others in Umno who are facing criminal charges in court have often justified their actions by claiming that their cases are politically motivated. That has now become a cliche. In politics, everything is politically motivated! The question to ask isn’t whether such cases are politically motivated but whether they are true or correct, and allow the courts to prove it so or otherwise.

Anwar’s silence perhaps is a demonstration of his own sense of ethics. He himself is facing a sodomy case in court and, therefore, is in no position to judge Zahid and other Umno members facing criminal charges in court or dismiss them. If he did, he would have to first dismiss himself, i.e. resign!

At the same time, one can not help but observe that should Zahid succeed in getting the AGC to drop the 47 charges against him, a precedent would be set and others facing criminal charges in court can do the same.

That would include Anwar and other politicians in his unity government who are facing criminal charges in court. It will also result in a long line of criminals seeking to drop charges against them.

That would be nothing but a mockery of our justice system. It is reckless irresponsibility to put the nation at risk by having such a candidate as a DPM who could become PM who mocks the AGC and the judiciary while the PM stands by silently.

This is the reason why politicians facing court charges should not be allowed to hold public office.

The people are witnessing first-hand how a compromised candidate will use position and influence to save himself or herself and set a precedent that should not have been set with no one stopping it.

It is, therefore, not surprising that there are efforts to change the current administration or, at least, the current PM.

Whether or not the PM’s position is at risk, Anwar has to act swiftly to choose the right candidate, after consultations with the partners in his unity government, to be the designated DPM who will take over from him as PM should it become necessary in the mid-term.

If he fails to correct the situation he has put the nation in, then, he gives MPs the right reasons to move against him. He would be inviting it.

Time for Bersatu to prove it’s a worthy choice

Uncategorized, ,

The way Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim managed or failed to manage the Allah word on socks and heel issues should have given the Opposition, namely Perikatan Nasional (PN), a very good reason to demand for his resignation.

That didn’t happen. Yet, PN’s reaction is not unexpected. PN commendably refrained from taking political mileage from the earlier mentioned two issues and stayed above the fray.

There could be a couple of reasons for PN’s inaction. Firstly, responsibly, it didn’t want to worsen the situation and showed remarkable calm in not agitating its members to react.

Secondly, PN perhaps knows with the Memorandum of Understanding that prevents parties from voting against Anwar, it would be difficult to muster a convincing majority to seek the resignation of the PM.

Getting a convincing majority must become PN’s primary objective. There are two strategies it can employ to achieve this objective. Firstly, PN must demonstrate a strong and fearless leadership in complying with the federal constitution, and, secondly, it must develop strategies to attract the moderate Malays and non-Malays to win by-elections.

PN’s lacklustre performance particularly on constitutional issues in debates in the Dewan Rakyat will give no MP contemplating a switch to another party a convincing reason to join PN because the MP will have no confidence that PN will back him/her on the strength of constitutional correctness.

Even in the debates on an issue very close to the hearts of people as the amendments to the Citizenship bill, PN MPs had little to contribute. The protests came largely from the government bench and from mostly its supporters.

If PN wants to form a government but does not know the federal constitution adequately to know how to defend itself according to the correct interpretations of the federal constitution, it will fail to win the confidence of the people — and the MPs — and, consequently, their support.

PN MPs were also silent in the debate on the amendments to the Police Act 1967, which included a new clause which makes the Yang di-Pertuan Agong the honorary commissioner-in-chief of the Royal Malaysia Police.

The new clause was not touched during the debate on the bill. How can the king be debated? No MP in his/her right mind will debate on the king. The constitution does not allow it. So what was the rationale of the government to introduce a clause for debate when our laws do not allow it?

Such inconsistencies should be immediately pointed out to show the lack of proper understanding of the constitution in the introduction of an amendment that should not have been tabled in the first place. The king is king of all. Why should he be demoted to a position as honorary commissioner-in-chief of the police? The king can’t be debated but the government’s intention can be questioned.

It is very likely that PN MPs kept silent because it involves the king. But MPs need to understand that it is not the king who is being questioned but the government.

When it comes to the king, MPs may not even want to be seen as expressing a negative reaction for fear of losing his support in the event they need to form a government mid-term. That simply reveals the ignorance of the MPs of the federal constitution and their lack of confidence as a result of it.

The federal constitution is explicit: The king appoints the MP who has the support of the majority of the MPs. If they have a majority, MPs must be confident of their constitutional right to form a government. If the king goes against it, the king is acting unconstitutionally and the MPs must know what to do to act constitutionally.

The king’s hand in the appointment of the prime minister can only be an issue if the MPs let him. Knowing that, MPs, and, especially PN MPs, must learn to confidently act constitutionally.

PN’s success so far has been on the back of its component partner PAS’ groundswell of support. PAS’ support comes mostly from the conservative segment of the Malay-Muslim population. It won four states in the north in the 2022 general election.

While it helped PN win more seats, it was unable to help PN form the state governments in Selangor and Negeri Sembilan. According to political analysts the main reason for this is that PAS’ support had plateaued out.

If PN is going to depend on PAS to deliver the votes in the future, PN is going to be disappointed. PN’s other component partner, Bersatu, must build itself up by reaching the less conservative segments of the Malay population and non-Malays. These segments include the urban Malays who may reject PAS as too conservative and outdated.

So, in the coming by-elections, it is imperative that PN fields Bersatu candidates not PAS candidates. This should be tested in the May 11 by-election in Kuala Kubu Baharu (KKB).

With current sentiments for the Pakatan Harapan (PH)-led unity government at an increasingly descending low, a Bersatu candidate who can appeal to both Malay and non-Malay voters will have a high chance of tipping the swing votes in PN’s favour. Voters are increasingly disgruntled with the current administration. They will give their votes to better alternatives.

Now is the time to prove that Bersatu is a worthy choice. If Bersatu wins KKB, it will be a very strong indication that the voters are turning away from PH, which means the party’s success in KKB may be repeated in subsequent by-elections.

Bersatu must show its leadership qualities and be able to appeal to a broader cross-section of voters if it wants to lead a government of the people for the people.

Selamat Hari Raya!

Uncategorized

Have a wonderful time, folks! Ignore all the unpleasantness happening around us. Just know, basically, we Malaysians are good people who are nice to each other and enjoy each other’s celebrations!

Going shopping, I saw people breaking fast in Chinese, Indian, Malay, Thai and all other shops! No issue. Because we generally are sensitive to one another.

So, let’s just enjoy ourselves!

Why a non-issue has become an issue

Uncategorized, ,

The Allah word-on-socks controversy is yet another example of how a government without the mandate of the people will prove itself powerless to exercise control in a crisis.

The unity government led by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has been expediently silent on the issue although it is fully aware that the owners of KK Mart had in no way intended to insult Islam and Muslims. The mart no doubt overlooked the few socks bearing the word Allah as it came in a bundle. But, KK Mart apologised profusely and withdrew the products and yet it wasn’t enough to pacify those offended by this unintended offence.

Followers of no religion will tolerate an insult to their religion. So, we understand how Muslims feel about the issue and respect their feelings. Muslims, who understood the facts of the case, however, have been exceedingly rational and understanding and acknowledge it was an unintentional offence.

The issue made headlines particularly because of Umno Youth leader Muhamad Akmal Saleh who fuelled the issue with a call for a boycott of KK Mart in retaliation. Despite numerous calls for him to pipe down, he kept the issue alive by refusing to call off the boycott.

As a result of this controversy, two non-Malays were charged and convicted in court and bombs were thrown in three KK Mart outlets. Akmal, hitherto, got off scot-free. But, today, after the issued had raged on for weeks, he was detained in Kota Kinabalu.

But the damage has been done. Could the arrests and inciting of emotions have been averted if Anwar had acted decisively in the early days of the issue and nipped it in the bud? Could he have managed the crisis without the support of the majority?

Amidst calls to defuse the situation, the prime minister simply said to let the authorities handle the issue, then he kept silent. Umno backed Akmal and maintained silence on the matter as well, commenting on the issue mildly only after the issue was blown out of proportion.

Anwar apparently has little leverage with the political parties in the unity government to direct them to rein in their people and know it would be done with the exception of his own coalition, Pakatan Harapan, perhaps. He may or may not have given such a directive. If he did, Umno apparently did not take heed because Akmal has insisted on continuing with the boycott.

If Anwar had formed a government as a result of intense negotiations between political parties with agreed upon trade-offs without contravening democratic principles or the federal constitution, he would have had an upper hand. As it is, he doesn’t because the political parties came together on the direction of the previous king and are held together by a memorandum of understanding — not by a free vote of support by the majority of the MPs.

Umno, which lost its pole position as the leading party representing the Malays in the 2022 general elections, was given a new lease of life by being part of the unity government in the hope that would bring the Malays back to it. So, Umno enjoyed concession after concession: deputy premiership, key cabinet positions, a DNAA (discharge not amounting to an acquittal to Umno President Ahmad Zahid Hamidi), and a part royal pardon to former prime minister Najib Razak presumably in the hope he would be able to bring voters back to Umno.

Hence, though a junior partner in the unity government, Umno has achieved some leeway and Akmal’s defiance has apparently brought some Malay support back to the party, which means the prime minister will say nothing to undermine that support.

So, we have a national crisis and the prime minister can’t do anything about it because he does not want to undermine whatever Malay support the Allah word-on-socks issue is bringing to Umno. All this boils down to the fact that he does not have the support of the majority.

Clearly, Anwar has lost control or he is not exercising control. The fact that he allowed the king to step in and give a final warning after letting the crisis go unabated is another indication the prime minister has lost control.

It is the Opposition which is holding the peace because it has the support of the Muslim majority while it is Anwar’s junior partner in the government which is causing the strife and putting the nation at risk.

This state of affairs is a strong justification to initiate a change in government but that constitutional right of the people has been robbed by the MoU. So, we have a government that can’t control the people and one which can’t be changed. The result? The people suffer.

If we had a constitutionally approved government supported by the majority, the PM could have easily told all his partners in government to tell their supporters to cool it and have the confidence of knowing that the message would reach the ground. A few still may not, but the PM would be seen as being in control and not depending on others to help him but able to manage the issue with the full support of his coalition partners. That would have inspired confidence in his leadership and helped to bring temperatures down.

This is a fundamental benefit of a constitutional government with a proven majority as against an appointed government without the mandate of the majority. With majority support it is easier for a government to implement communication strategies to reach the grassroots and enforce law and order to manage crises.

The way this issue has been managed or not managed should serve as an eye-opener to all politicians and MPs on the importance of fighting to ensure that parliamentary democracy and the constitution are never compromised nor sacrificed for the sake of expediency.

The consequence may be disastrous to the nation as we are catching a glimpse of it now.

When the constitution is not followed …

Uncategorized, ,

A motion to challenge former prime minister Najib Razak’s pardon has been filed to be raised at the Malaysian Bar’s annual general assembly tomorrow.

The motion has been filed by former Malaysian Bar president Zainur Zakaria. It states that the “incoming Bar Council, on behalf and in the name of the Malaysian Bar, challenges the legality of the said decision by the Pardons Board, by urgently instituting judicial review proceedings against the Pardons Board and Najib” (Malaysiakini, March 15).

It also stated that the Pardons Board is viewed as “acting ultra vires of Article 42 of the Federal Constitution, and in contravention of the law, in reducing Najib’s jail sentence to half and his fine to RM50 million” as quoted in the same Malaysiakini report.

If the Pardons Board’s pardon of Najib is unconstitutional, it is only right that it is challenged in court and what is constitutional is clearly defined by the court and must be adhered to. The question, however, is whether the Pardon’s Board will abide by the court decision.

Already, we have a situation where a state government has defied a Federal Court decision and nothing is being done about it.

A challenge, similar to Zainur’s motion, was mounted against the PAS-led Kelantan government’s 18 syariah criminal code provisions. The Federal Court nullified 16 but early this month, the Kelantan state legislative assembly passed a motion to re-enact the 16 provisions in a clear defiance of the Federal Court decision.

This is a very serious contravention of the constitution but why is the unity government led by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim keeping quiet about it? Isn’t it the responsibility of the federal government to make the state government conform to the laws of the land?

If the Kelantan state government is allowed to get away without complying with a Federal Court decision, what is the message that is communicated to the people? That the federal government is powerless to enforce the law of the land?

If the federal government decides to use force to make the Kelantan state government conform to the federal constitution, it would be seen as an abuse of power and make the unity government even more unpopular.

Besides, the Kelantan state government may dig in its heels and turn around and tell the unity government that it has no moral grounds to discipline the state when the constitutionality of the federal government itself is questionable.

As a response to Kelantan’s recent move, one voice expressed its concern. The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Taoism (MCCBCHST) yesterday called on the Attorney-General (AG) to intervene in the Kelantan case and act to uphold constitutional democracy.

Can and will the AG act without the backing of the government?

The people are witnessing what will happen when governments fail to act according to the constitution. This is just the beginning. If this trend of allowing political and religious expediency to trump the federal constitution continues it may lead to the eventual slide in the enforcement of law and order.

No one must be silent on this fundamental basis for law and order — complying with the federal constitution. Like MCCBCHST, people must speak up and demand that their MPs conform with the federal constitution. If MPs and government leaders do not, they must know that their parliamentary and state seats are not assured.

MPs and and political leaders must understand that they will first be held only to the federal constitution. If they fail to comply with the federal constitution, nothing else justifies.

When in doubt, follow democratic principles

Uncategorized

From the way our MPs conduct themselves in the Dewan Rakyat and as public servants, it is clear they have limited understanding of the federal constitution and parliamentary democracy, which is the form of government we practise.

The problem arises in the interpretations and especially when the federal constitution does not spell out the procedures or processes to achieve a democratic outcome.

In such cases, common sense should dictate that the best guide to making decisions is to fall back on the democratic principles on which our parliamentary democracy is formed.

If the MPs had followed the principles of democracy would we have had three unconstitutional governments? Would the current appointed prime minister Anwar Ibrahim have called for a confidence vote by tying the hands of the MPs through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)?

In a more recent case, would the incumbent prime minister have failed to attend the opening of the debate on the royal address at the Dewan Rakyat to move the motion of thanks to the king in which he also wanted to thank the previous king? Would he have requested for a change in the timing of delivering the motion of thanks from the Speaker, Johari Abdul?

Would the Speaker have complied and changed the order of the conventional practice to accommodate the prime minister’s request?

If the Speaker understood democratic principles, would he also have accommodated Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s motion — on behalf of the government — to suspend Bersatu’s Tasek Gelugor MP Wan Saiful Wan Jan from the Dewan Rakyat for six months for alluding to Anwar as being corrupt when Wan Saiful had already retracted his statement earlier at the request of the Speaker?

These questions are asked because there are doubts in the minds of the people as to whether the MPs are conducting themselves in some key areas according to the authority bestowed on them by the federal constitution to carry out their duties, and according to democratic principles to ensure the independence of the institutions they represent and respect the separation of powers.

So far, there are no attempts by the MPs to right the wrongs and until they do, the people can expect such lapses to continue to occur. These will become the norm.

There is no point in bringing such lapses to light again as there is no demonstrable will to act in accordance with the federal constitution and democratic principles. Until such a will emerges, there will be silence and the burden of suffering in silence will fall on the people while the leaders do as they please and get away with it.

The courts the next option?

Uncategorized, ,

Islamic party PAS’ reaction to the Federal Court’s decision to invalidate 16 of the 18 laws the party introduced in Kelantan to make its laws more Islamic is understandable. The optics of that decision is unfavourable to PAS.

It would seem as if PAS’s religious laws can be overturned by the apex court of the land, the Federal Court. That would make the religious party’s religious stand look powerless. That’s the optics; it’s not the truth.

The truth is that the Federal Court did not touch on any religious issue. It merely upheld what the federal constitution required: that state laws must not contravene federal laws. In Kelantan’s case, the 16 invalidated laws were already covered by federal laws and there was no need for similar laws with different sentences at the state level.

In PAS’ zealousness, it overlooked federal laws. Two Kelantan-born lawyers who saw the discrepancy took the issue to court and the said laws were overturned. A precedent has been set and concerned citizens in other states can also take state laws to court to get judicial clarification.

This case shows that when the people’s representatives act or fail to act in accordance with the constitution, they can be taken to court.

This has happened before when lawyers sought clarification in courts as to whether the previous king acted constitutionally when appointing the three prime ministers, namely Muhyiddin Yassin, Ismail Sabri Yaakob and Anwar Ibrahim, to form their respective governments.

Those cases were thrown out because the courts declared that the courts had no jurisdiction over the king. The lawyers made the mistake of seeking clarification on whether the king acted constitutionally when they should have queried whether the MPs acted constitutionally.

If the MPs and the political parties acted in accordance with the constitution, the king will have no choice but to act constitutionally. If they didn’t is there any point in scrutinizing if the king did while the MPs get off scot-free?

It is not the king who forms the government, the MPs do. So, whatever constitutional clarifications are sought by the plaintiffs, the defendants need to be the MPs, the political parties and the governments they formed — not the king.

The question that should be put before the courts for clarification is whether the MPs and political parties formed the current unity government (no point in questioning the previous two administrations as they no longer exist) in accordance with the federal constitution.

Such clarifications are needful to clear whatever doubts the people may have about the constitutional legitimacy of the current administration.

After the Federal Court judgements on Kelantan’s state Islamic laws, surely, the thought of seeking court clarifications on the constitutional position of the unity government must have crossed the minds of a number of people, perhaps, even the Opposition coalition, Perikatan Nasional (PN).

Article 43(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution states: The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall first appoint as prime minister to preside over the Cabinet, a member of the House of Representatives who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House.

Should PN or anyone else take this issue to court, the primary objective must be to ascertain if after the 2022 General Election, the prime minister-designate Anwar showed proof of support from the majority of MPs in the Dewan Rakyat to the king for him to be named as prime minister, and, subsequently, whether he and the political parties which joined him formed the unity government according to the federal constitution.

PN is considering legal means to annul the membership of six of its members who had declared support for Anwar in order to receive constituency development funding. They declared support for Anwar but chose to remain as Bersatu members to get around the Anti-hopping law. If Bersatu can legally annul their membership, the MPs will have to vacate their seats and by-elections will be called unless the six MPs take the matter to court.

Since PN is considering legal means to stop its MPs from declaring support for Anwar, it would not be surprising if the coalition has also considered taking legal action against the unity government to prove its constitutional legitimacy.

If it did and follows through, PN would be demonstrating exemplary leadership in ensuring conformity with the federal constitution. If MPs and their political parties had failed to act constitutionally in forming the unity government, then this government can not continue and why are the MPs keeping quiet about it?

If the government will not take pains to ensure constitutional fidelity, it is the responsibility of the Opposition — which is PN in this case — to take drastic steps if needed — like taking the government MPs and political parties to court — to restore a constitutional government.

Anwar claims he has majority support because of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) he signed with the political parties which joined him to form the unity government. The MoU demands that the parties ensure that their MPs do not vote against him. With that he did face a confidence vote but it was a farce because the MPs could not vote freely because of the MoU.

So, the MoU is another issue that may need the courts’ clarification as to whether it deprived the MPs of their constitutional rights. One of the architects of the Anti-hopping law, former Senate President Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar, has said that political parties can take action under the Anti-hopping law against members who switch sides.

The laws need to be studied to see if there are grounds to challenge the MoU and likewise the legitimacy of the current administration.

PN is in the best position to undertake this grave responsibility to ensure that MPs act constitutionally. If it does, it will be showing it has the courage and will to serve the people according to the federal constitution and will earn the trust and respect of the people to govern with an unflinching commitment to the federal constitution. It would be a desirable next government.

Seeking a court clarification on whether this government was formed constitutionally will also serve notice to MPs that if they do not act according to the constitution, they can be taken to court.

The people have a right to know if the government of the day is constitutional and therefore legitimate. If the government will not prove it, then, it is the duty of the Opposition to prove it is or not. Failing to do so by government or Opposition MPs is simply a dereliction of duty.

Gong Xi Fa Cai!

Uncategorized,

Folks, don’t let the political climate spoil this Chinese New Year weekend! A lot of things have happened that we are unhappy about. Umno — though a small party rejected by the majority of its voter base — getting unjustifiable help from the government to return to power as evidenced by the “partial pardon” — which benefits no one — given to former prime minister Najib Razak is one of them.

It is the latest of all the other bad news we have been getting in these past four years. But, I’m told that the Year of the Wood Dragon 2024 is supposed to be a good one. The wood element associated with this dragon is expected to add creativity, flexibility and growth to the year.

I’m not into astrology but am always open to positive suggestions that could improve a situation or solve a problem. The notion of creativity that comes with this year of the dragon is, I believe, excellent food for thought.

Even at a personal level, creativity helps us solve problems without compromising our belief systems. Otherwise, we make things worse by justifying bad ways of solving problems by saying “no choice”!

At the political level, I’m hoping that our leaders and MPs learn from the mistakes made and find creative ways of solving national and political issues without compromising the federal constitution.

Finding creative solutions without going against the constitution is a characteristic we do not see in our leaders and MPs. Instead we see this chaotic, ad hoc and panic-prone way of doing things expediently rather than constitutionally which results in more problems than solutions.

So, I’m looking forward to a year of creative solutions!

The Chinese New Year reunion dinner must be over because I can hear as I write fire crackers going off sporadically in the night! No sound of the colourful burst of fireworks, yet. Late last night, a neighbour set off a lovely display of fireworks which I witnessed gleefully through my window!

Close to midnight, I intend to stay by my window and watch the night ignite into a myriad configurations of lights as fire crackers explode continuously all around.

I know I will wish that the exploding crackers would mute — just a little! But then, I know, I would ask, “Hey, what happened to the Chinese?! Why aren’t they frightening the ghosts off before the new year this year?!” I’ll miss the noisy welcome of the Chinese new year!

So, fire away, folks and light up the sky! Gong Xi Fa Cai, all!

Time for PN MPs to get serious

Uncategorized, ,

The Pardons Board’s decisions to commute former prime minister Najib Razak’s jail term from 12 years to six and his fine from RM210 million to RM50 million must be debated in the Dewan Rakyat.

While the people are glad that Najib didn’t get a pardon, Opposition MPs must question Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim for the reason or reasons for bringing this case before the Pardons Board when Najib had completed only a year of his jail term. Shouldn’t the government have waited for a few more years or followed the convention of letting the felon serve at least one third of his/her jail term before applying for a pardon?

Conventions are useful to facilitate the smooth execution of justice when the law doesn’t spell it out. Why was it abandoned in this case?

A one-year fulfilment of a jail term may be too soon for a review for a pardon but a few years of serving a jail term would satisfy the need for retribution before consideration for a pardon. Such conventions should be followed and entrenched and not dismissed for the sake of political expediency unless for exceptional urgent national interests which the Najib case isn’t!

For the billions of Malaysian ringgit that Najib was supposed to be involved in, a RM210 million fine is a paltry sum. What was the point of making it easier for him to pay his fine by reducing it by nearly 75% when the Anwar government is on a witch-hunt to target very rich businessmen/women in order — it is alleged — to return “the billions they stole from the government”?

The motive behind the board’s move isn’t clear and in the absence of clarity appears unnecessary. There’s no pardon and Najib will only be released in 2028, so what was the purpose of the board’s decision now. What prompted it?

The people have a right to know why Najib’s application for a pardon was forwarded now and the only people who can expose this seeming farce are the MPs, particularly Perikatan Nasional (PN) MPs.

Not only must PN MPs raise this issue in the Dewan Rakyat, but they must raise all other issues to expose the unity government’s motives and especially to ascertain if these motives are aimed at upholding the federal constitution or compromising it.

Right now PN MPs stick to bread and butter issues in Parliament. They must now advance to constitutional issues to ensure that the government is adhering to the democratic principles on which our parliamentary system of government is formed.

This is the only way the people will know whether Anwar’s unity government is legitimate or not or corruption-free. And it will be through this way that PN will gain more support from the people.

Whether it involves the MACC, the Pardons Board, the Attorney-General or constitutional monarchy, PN MPs must lead the debates to expose the government’s hidden or private agendas.

PN MPs can no longer sit back passively and wait for the chance to speak up or act. They are fully aware what the unity government is up to and they can’t be silent anymore. They must reveal what this government is not saying or doing.

When they raise these issues in the Dewan Rakyat and generate enough discussion on them, it may encourage the disgruntled government MPs to do the same to show their supporters that they are on the side of the people.

This can only work to PN’s advantage. It is time for PN to stop sitting around and waiting for things to happen and, instead, go on the offensive. This unity government provides sufficient ammunition to backfire on them.

The solution? A confidence vote without the MoU

Uncategorized,

It should surprise no one that the unity government from day one has been faced with the threat of its removal. In fact, it should be welcomed for the simple reason that it is an unconstitutional government because its appointed prime minister has yet to prove he has the support of the majority of the MPs in the Dewan Rakyat as required by the federal constitution.

The MPs know it — except for the constitutionally ignorant ones — and so do all the discerning voters that Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim does not have majority support. Perhaps, he knows it, too, and he may have realised that he had made a mistake when he called for a confidence vote after he made all the political parties involved sign a Memorandum of Understanding that they won’t vote against him as prime minister.

Anwar won that vote with a two-thirds majority because all the MPs whose parties were bound by the MoU had no choice but to vote according to the party. Not allowed to vote freely according to the interests of the voters, because of the MoU, how can that confidence vote legitimise his unity government?

That is the crux of the problem. The point is this issue can be easily resolved. Quash the MoU and call for a confidence vote. That is the constitutional way of legitimising a government when no side has a majority — not the way Anwar went about forming the unity government.

If, indeed, it was a mistake, it can be rectified, as said earlier, without an MoU, and if Anwar himself calls for a motion for a confidence vote.

As it is, under Anwar, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has called previous premiers for questioning on corruption issues. It has also called former finance minister Daim Zainuddin who held office about 40 years ago for questioning also on suspicion of corruption based on the Pandora Papers.

These are serious allegations levelled at these former high-ranking officials. But with what authority is Anwar allowing these investigations when he does not have the mandate of the majority to do so? This can be considered as abuse of power of the highest order because he is acting without majority support and therefore imposing his will on the majority. That is not democratic but dictatorial.

The issue is not whether there was corruption in the dealings of these former public servants but whether Anwar has the right to be PM without majority support and to undertake such actions without the mandate of the people.

He can not hide behind the king for appointing him nor on the MoU for continuing in government as usual. Without a proven majority, he can not claim that he is leading a constitutional government.

The only solution now — even if it is more than one year too late — is to prove the validity of his government. If Anwar has reason to believe he does not have the support of the majority of the MPs — not political parties as it is the MP’s vote that constitutes support not the parties’ word or signing of an MoU — he should call for a confidence vote.

It is not fair of him to ask the Opposition to prove his validity when he knows their motion for a no-confidence vote may be rejected by the Speaker or relegated to the bottom of the businesses of the day and never see the light of day. In addition, because of the MoU, the Opposition knows they may not get the support of the MPs even of those who want a change of government.

Anwar knows all this. So, asking the Opposition to prove his validity is just a ploy because he knows they won’t win.

Anwar needs to show that he is serious about proving that he has the majority support of the Dewan Rakyat. He should prove it without an MoU. He himself has said that the Opposition doesn’t have the support to call for a no-confidence motion. So, he has nothing to fear.

By calling for a confidence vote, the prime minister will settle the issue of the validity of the unity government once and for all. Whether he wins or the Opposition wins, overnight there will be stability because a constitutional government would be formed. All these unceasing moves to topple the government will immediately stop.

If at all such a move is resorted to in the future it will be for very good reasons that MPs or a political party withdraws support. In the immediate future, however, there would be stability and a government will run unobstructed.

I may be sounding like a broken record. But the legitimacy of a government is found in its adherence to the federal constitution in our form of government. A precedent has been set when the process of forming a government when no party or coalition has a majority has been compromised. If it is not corrected now, unscrupulous leaders will use the precedent to justify establishing themselves as a PM and form an unconstitutional government which will be tolerated.

This can not and must not happen again. By paving the way for a confidence vote Anwar will be setting the example of how to prove the validity of a government. A law or an amendment in standing orders to allow for MPs to move a motion for a confidence/no-confidence vote to prove the legitimacy of a government can come later.

For now, Anwar can restore political stability by simply calling for a confidence vote without the MoU. And it should be conducted by ballot not a voice vote so that a majority even by one vote is recorded.

Kit Siang’s non-Malay PM hullabaloo

Uncategorized, ,

What really is the reason for the contention over DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang’s statement to a gathering of Malaysian students in London last November that a non-Malay could become a prime minister of Malaysia?

Why did that statement that is correct and which is stated in the Federal Constitution raise such a cloud of protests from the Opposition which represents the majority in the country by virtue of being the majority race, namely the Malays?

Article 43(2)(a) states: The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall first appoint as Perdana Menteri
(Prime Minister) to preside over the Cabinet a member of the House of Representatives who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House.

This law does not state the race of the PM, so Yang Berhormat (YB) Lim was correct in saying that a non-Malay could become a PM; he wasn’t being seditious. So, why did it trigger such adverse reactions that a member of the public lodged a police report prompting the police to call him up for questioning?

Perhaps, it was because of an oversight on his part that he did not clarify the second part of the law which states the condition on which a non-Malay can become a PM. A non-Malay can become a PM if he commands the confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament in the Dewan Rakyat. The majority of MPs represent the Malay majority and if a non-Malay can command their support, he/she can become PM.

The current reality, however, is that it is an unlikelihood that the majority of MPs representing the Malays would give their support to a non-Malay PM. That might happen in the future but now, unlikely.

The point to note is that an MP becoming a PM is conditional to him/her winning the support of the majority of MPs the majority of whom represent the Malay majority. In other words, no one — Malay or non-Malay can ever become a PM in Malaysia without Malay support. It must also be noted here that the majority support must come from the “members of the House” — the MPs — not political parties.

YP Lim did explain that the possibility of a non-Malay PM isn’t a current reality. Yet, it didn’t pacify his critics, mainly because he had written in his blog that “The Malaysian constitution provides for a Malaysian Dream and not a mono-ethnic dream as it provides that a non-Malay can (also) be a prime minister”.

The obvious question is: How can the Malaysian Dream NOT be a mono-ethnic dream when the majority of the MPs represent a mono-ethnic community?

Perhaps, YB Lim, looking through his ethnic lens, overlooked this reality and failed to communicate that in the Malaysian Dream the mono-ethnic dream is central or integral and will not be swamped by other dreams. This is the fear that his statement triggered and which resulted in such a chorus of negative reactions to his definition of the Malaysian Dream which excludes the mono-ethnic reality.

If he had conceded that in the Malaysian Dream other dreams would co-exist and thrive with the mono-ethnic dream, it would have made his stand less threatening. It would have shown his commitment to a Malaysian multi-culturalism that builds on the mono-ethnic dream and is inclusive of other dreams but does not attempt to overtake or set aside the mono-ethnic dream.

To a people who are still smarting from being forced out of a government — although they are the majority — through unconstitutional moves supported by the DAP, describing a Malaysian Dream which dismisses the mono-ethnic dream, comes across as a biased interpretation of the constitution to favour multi-ethnic dreams at the exclusion of the mono-ethnic dream.

In the context of the most recent experience of forming the unity government where an MP with minority support was appointed as PM — fully supported by the DAP — YB Lim’s statement conjures the possibility that a minority-supported MP could in the same way become PM by sidelining the majority representation of the Malays.

To a veteran politician such as YB Lim and doyen of Opposition MPs, it should come as no surprise that his statement of a non-Malay PM stirred up such stinging criticisms. No doubt, his statement shows his desire for a more inclusive Malaysia — and that is commendable! — but it also reveals an unconscious and unintentional, perhaps, lack of sensitivity to the Malays and their aspirations.

How then can the DAP, in the spirit of its Malaysian dream, claim it also represents the majority race which, in recent events, it failed to include? If it excluded majority representation when it was convenient for it to join the unity government, what guarantee is there that it would not also exclude other minority representations when it suits them?