Recently Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim asked a question that is very telling. The fact that he asked this question and the apparent answer reveals what is fundamentally wrong with the current administration.

Anwar could not understand the volley of criticisms fired at him over a Chinese New Year function he attended with his Cabinet members and supporters at which they participated in the tradition of raising yee sang (raw fish salad) into the air to bring good fortune and prosperity in the new year.

He could not understand the negative reactions from the mainly Malay opposition groups who felt it didn’t reflect the culture of the majority Malays, to which Anwar asked why there was no opposition to tossing yee sang by previous administrations but his was targetted.

It must be explained here that Anwar’s administration has been roundly criticised for every key decision he and his ministers have made or did not make over domestic issues since he was appointed prime minister.

When the issues involved non-Muslims, like the KK Mart, heel and socks issue, or controversial business deals like Blackrock and U Mobile, he maintained a frustrating silence, disappointing his mostly non-Malay minority urban voter base. When the criticisms were aimed at other issues he would counter with explanations no one agreed with.

But, over the yee sang issue, his question reflected he had no answer and that reveals his poor grasp of the concerns of the majority race who isn’t his voter base because they didn’t vote for him but who he is wooing for a political future for himself and his coalition, Pakatan Harapan (PH).

So, Anwar could not understand why he was criticised for participating in an event all previous PMs had done without criticism.

The PM has been bending over backwards to appeal to the Opposition’s Malay majority voter base as they form the majority race in the country but are not represented in his administration. He has increased salaries to the Malay-majority civil service and channelled funds to the poorer Malay-majority states and various projects to reach the B40 group most of whom are Malays.

But these same people are his worst critics. So, he has real reasons to be baffled. But, his bafflement is a reflection of his lack of understanding of a basic tenet of democracy: People vote for those they trust will protect their interests.

In Anwar’s case, the Malay majority he is wooing does not trust him. They are the majority by virtue of being the majority race but they didn’t vote for him and yet he was appointed the prime minister with minority parties supporting him. So, the majority has no confidence that this minority PM will put their interests before those of the minorities he represents.

The majority race– the Malays — did not criticise previous administrations because the latter had the support of the Malay majority who elected these administrations together with some minority groups. And when these administrations made concessions that included the non-Malay minorities the Malay base was not threatened because they had the confidence that their interests would nevertheless be protected.

Anwar apparently does not know the majority to understand their underlying anger. The yee sang incident is the clearest case so far that shows the lack of confidence of the majority in Anwar’s administration. That is what the above answer to his question reveals. Anwar does not have the confidence of the majority, yet, he remains as prime minister.

In a thriving democracy, an elected prime minister, once realising he/she does not have the support of the majority will immediately act to test his/her majority in Parliament. That has not happened in Malaysia with the current administration. The primary reason for this is simply the reluctance of MPs to defend the federal constitution and democratic principles despite the fact that the unity government was appointed without proof of majority support as required by the constitution.

The Opposition Perikatan Nasional (PN) did make several attempts to gain support from other political parties to topple the incumbent and appointed unity government but failed mainly because MPs wanted to make deals, rather than seek the ultimate goal of constitutional conformity which is the primary responsibility of MPs.

In doing so, these MPs failed to understand that they were and still are betraying the people who trusted and elected them to advance their interests — not make deals to ensure their own political survival.

Apparently, PN itself wasn’t confident of its understanding of the constitution to take the issue to the people who like the politicians also do not have a confident grasp of the constitution. If instead, PN had gone on a media blitz to educate the public, supporters of political parties, having understood the issues involved, might have exerted sufficient pressure on their MPs to ally with PN to restore a constitutional government. That, too, didn’t happen.

Instead, the MPs who swore to uphold the federal constitution chose the easy way out when faced with a situation where the constitution was not fully complied with, by going along with the flow rather than challenging it to ensure constitutional fidelity.

The federal constitution which enshrines our parliamentary democracy must never be compromised at all cost. When one or two of their peers transgress the constitution, the rest of the MPs must be quick to censure and discipline them. Failing to do so is a betrayal of the trust of the people who elected the MPs because the constitution is the fundamental rule of law that the people fall back on to protect their interests.

Some MPs may argue that sometimes there are conflicting interpretations regarding some laws in the constitution. Agreed. But MPs must understand that democracy — specifically parliamentary democracy in our case — is the fundamental basis of the federal constitution and whatever the interpretations it must conform with democratic principles and never usurp Parliament as the supreme authority of this country.

When MPs don’t understand this and will not uphold the constitution and, instead, get away with not complying with it, what guarantee do the people have that in the face of a national crisis, the MPs won’t sell off the people’s rights or national sovereignty for the sake of expediency and political survival? That would be the collapse of the nation.

The people must know what our MPs have done or failed to do and realise what a serious transgression they have committed against the people. The people must target the leaders of the political parties who allowed this state of affairs to happen and continue. In the next general elections, the people must send a clear message that these leaders who are also MPs who do not stand up for the constitution will be punished.

If the MPs will not fight to uphold the constitution, the people must.