Category Archives: Uncategorized

No-contests are undemocratic

Uncategorized, ,

It’s hard to understand why the leaders of political parties do not stand for party elections. The major Malay political parties in Peninsular Malaysia — except PAS — have declared a no-contest for their top posts.

The leaders of the other two main Malay parties, Bersatu and Umno, have decided that there would be no contest for the party president’s post. In Bersatu, the deputy president’s post, currently held by Hamzah Zainuddin, was also not contested. Muhyiddin Yassin is the Bersatu president.

During its party elections in 2023, Umno passed a resolution for its top two posts to go uncontested, giving party president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and his deputy Mohamad Hassan to lead the party for another term.

PAS also held its party elections in 2023 and while there was no ruling for a no-contest for the top two posts, there was only one nominee for each position so party president Hadi Awang and deputy president Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man won their positions unopposed. PAS will be holding its elections in September this year and so far there is no ruling for a no-contest for the top two positions.

Bersatu is now in a spot because if PAS elects top leaders or has incumbent leaders who win unopposed, PAS will be in a stronger position to seek a leadership role in their coalition, Perikatan Nasional (PN), which, at the moment, Bersatu leads under an understanding between both parties even though it is a smaller party with fewer MPs than PAS.

An unelected Bersatu president now further strains this relationship between the two parties. Since PAS has more MPs than Bersatu and with elected top leaders, it gets more leverage to lead PN, which will make it even more difficult for moderate Malays and non-Muslims to vote for PN in the next general elections.

How Bersatu will resolve this sticky issue is left to be seen. If, on the other hand, its president were elected, it would be a strong basis to test his support in a general election and it would give the party stronger grounds to helm the coalition. Bersatu still has time to call for a special assembly to elect its top leaders.

In a healthy democracy, the party president’s post must always be elected, especially if the party president is a potential prime minister, as is the case in Malaysia with Malay parties.

It is the democratic tradition to elect a party president before a general election. Why this tradition is not followed in Malaysia is, perhaps, due to a decision made during then prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s time in the 1990s. It is likely that as president of the sole Malay-based party, Umno, and facing a split in votes, Mahathir opted for a no-contest for the top posts to keep the party united and not lose a general election (GE), which would have meant that the Malays had lost the political power to govern.

The situation now is, however, different. The Malays are split and represented by more than one party. That’s all the more reason why the presidents of these parties first need to prove their support in their own parties before testing it in a general election. As such, in the current political context, a no-contest for the top posts serves no purpose other than keeping unelected leaders with an overdose of self-importance in power and providing them with a shortcut to becoming a PM. No-contests thus are undemocratic.

So, it is extremely disappointing that Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s party, PKR, which is not a Malay-based party but has strong support from urban Malays, and is supposedly a leading advocate of reform in the country, has declared that the party president’s post will be uncontested in its party elections next month.

Anwar is an appointed PM who passed a no-confidence vote in Parliament after signing a Memorandum of Understanding with other political parties to support him for a full term. His coalition, Pakatan Harapan (PH), backed by urban minorities, got the most votes but not enough to form a majority government in 2022, but he was nevertheless appointed to form a government by the king.

He has yet to seek the mandate of the people through a free vote. Logically speaking, if Anwar followed democratic practices, he would have seen in his party elections an opportunity to seek grassroots support and then the mandate of the majority in a general election. The fact that he has not so far just can’t be understood.

Malay-based party leaders need to seek the mandate to govern by democratic means and not use expediency to justify undemocratic means to achieve power. Defending their positions or standing for elections in their party is a good start.

Selamat Hari Raya!

Uncategorized,

Long weekend ahead! So, folks have a leisurely balik kampung drive, rest before driving, take plenty of breaks and reach home safely! Enjoy yourselves!

Those travelling but not balik-ing kampung, you’ll miss out on the local food and connections, but a different scene is always a refreshing change.

If you are in Kelantan and Terengganu, and you can’t go shopping or treat yourself at your favourite supermarkets or restaurants because the state told them to close on the first day of the Raya hols, go elsewhere! Enjoy yourself, but if you are not happy with the inconvenience, express your displeasure at the ballot box in the next elections! Politicians must be taught a lesson at the polls when they do things the people don’t like!

So, folks, have a happy Raya hols. This year I’ll miss the lemang and beef rendang — which is standard fare for me during this season — because the stall from which I get it wasn’t there. Same with a couple of others. Either business is bad and they moved to a more profitable place or changed their business or just closed shop. I won’t know.

The government keeps praising itself on its efforts but it’s getting tougher and tougher for the people at the bottom! Don’t let that spoil your celebrations. Keep it in mind and use your vote to get leaders who have your interests at heart to represent you.

Meanwhile, Selamat Hari Raya!

What’s wrong with the Parliamentary Service Bill?

Uncategorized,

On the surface of it, the new Parliamentary Service Bill 2025 that was tabled in the Dewan Rakyat on Monday for first reading would seem like an actualization of the much-debated need to reform Parliament and finally give it independence from the executive.

On closer examination, however, the initial euphoria would quickly dissipate. The bill is entirely aimed at enlarging Parliament’s staff and separating it from the civil service. It is simply a new structural organisation of how Parliament will be managed, no doubt, independently of the civil service.

There is no mention, however, of how it will affect the duties and conduct of Members of Parliament. It offers no solution on how MPs can form a democratically-installed government in the face of a hung Parliament, which is the most urgent and immediate issue facing MPs and the reason why the past two administrations and the current one were formed by undemocratic means.

The bill will enable Parliament to manage its own administration through the establishment of the Parliamentary Service and Parliamentary Service Council.

All the staff will be appointed from the general public service but will be separate from the civil service schemes.

According to media reports, in the explanatory section of the bill, under the heading “financial implications”, it is stated: “This bill will involve the government in extra financial expenditure the amount of which cannot at present be ascertained.”

The government will fund this enlarged, independently administered Parliament but the scope of authority, duties and objectives are not spelt out which raises questions as to how the government will maintain separation when it funds this new entity.

Funding isn’t necessarily a tool to control, but the conditions or reasons for funding must be clearly stipulated so that it is in black and white where the funds come from and that the funders will have no say or influence in the administration of the new entity.

Another question is whether the “extra financial expenditure” will come from the government coffers or include funds from other sources. If from other sources, will the funders be able to influence this new entity? If this is not clearly stated in the bill, then the independence of this entity is merely a facade, when in actual fact its funders can influence the new administration of Parliament.

If this new entity is not entirely independent, then the new Parliamentary Service Bill 2025 is a waste of time and resources.

Already, questions are being asked on the independence of this new entity.

In addition to the Parliamentary Service Bill 2025, a Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2025 was tabled to amend certain articles to bring the proposed law in line with the Federal Constitution.

Among the articles amended is one of significant note, namely Article 65 which is being amended to allow the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to appoint secretaries to the parliamentary houses.

This is extremely unusual for a parliamentary democracy to allow the constitutional monarch to appoint secretaries to Parliament although the appointment may be regulated by federal law.

How democratic and how independent can this new parliamentary entity be if the king can make appointments to it?

The new Parliamentary Service Bill 2025 is a staffing bill, as Opposition leader Hamzah Zainuddin describes it, and provides no good reason to be introduced except, perhaps, to justify the amending of Article 65 to enable the king to extend a hand of influence into a democratic institution.

This is not the first time that Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s government has tabled an amendment to a bill to extend the king’s influence into government. The Police Act was amended to make the king the honorary Commissioner of Police. What that role meant was not elaborated but the bill was passed without debate on the amendment.

The Mufti Bill was also announced for tabling but was met with much criticisms for being undemocratic as it empowers an unelected mufti to make independent decisions from the government and whom the king can have complete access to as the head of Islam of the nation.

One wonders what is the motive of the government in tabling bills involving the king for debate when by law the king and rulers are above the law and can’t be debated? Unless the intent is to pass the bill without debate? If so, then it is a surreptitious means of giving the king reach into government and blurring the lines of separation of powers between parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy that is clearly indicated in the Federal Constitution.

Amendments involving the king and rulers should not be tabled in Parliament unless they are brought for debate by the people. To know if the people want such amendments, a referendum should be held, and if the majority approves, then the amendments can be brought to the Dewan
Rakyat for debate.

Only laws by, of and for the people are brought to Parliament for debate. Parliament is not the forum for unelected elites to impose their laws on the people when the people are unaware that such laws are being tabled and which their representatives by law can’t debate as they involve the king.

Neither should the government table such laws — since they can’t be debated — before the people are told of such impending changes. The fact that the people were not forewarned of such constitutional changes and yet the bills are tabled suggests subtle deception in using Parliament to pass laws that can’t be debated and without the knowledge of the people.

MPs need to show that they understand democracy and the significance of both the Parliamentary Service Bill 2025 and Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2025 when debating them.

The people will be watching to see if the MPs will fight to ensure that our democratic institutions remain democratic or if they will compromise them in exchange for parliamentary allocations and other benefits and continue supporting these efforts at undermining parliamentary democracy.

The people must know what the MPs have done …

Uncategorized, ,

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.

It’s going to be a good year …

Uncategorized,

But that does not mean there will be no problems. In human reality, problems are part and parcel of life. They are inevitable. But this year some fuzzy areas will be cleared and brought into focus and they will offer possibilities and opportunities for resolution.

It is like being under a dark cloud, which casts shadows that make it difficult to see things as they really are. This affects our judgement because we make decisions based on limited knowledge. But when the cloud passes over and disappears the dark shadows are lifted and we see clearly and that helps us make better decisions.

In 2025, many issues that have been plaguing planet Earth will clarify. However, it is what we do in response that will determine whether things will get better.

When clarity comes, it is those who seize the possibilities and opportunities it opens up who will find success. Those who don’t and carry on as usual will miss out completely on the chance to resolve; a second chance may be long in coming and in some cases never come. This will be true at the personal, communal, national and international levels.

It is those who seize the possibilities and opportunities clarity brings who will become the catalysts for change that will improve the quality of life for those involved. The rest will plod on, business as usual.

Internationally and nationally, there will be some let-up of stress in some trouble spots offering leaders options to navigate towards a solution. It will be the same at the personal level. As clarity broadens the perspective, swift and decisive action will lead to positive results.

When clarity presents itself, it will inspire the true leaders to rise up to act in the interests of the people and they will get the support of the majority of the people. Their policies and plans will produce positive results leading to a concerted effort to move forwards towards progress. The leaders who don’t, will be met with increasing resistance and their immediate futures will be at stake.

The challenges clarity illuminates will not be difficult but they require a strong will to find solutions according to the rules of the land and international laws. At the personal level, according to acceptable social, cultural and religious norms. When the over-riding concern is the good of the people, leaders with a strong will to effect such changes will get ahead because the people will recognise and support them.

Where Malaysia is concerned, leaders have to consider two primary factors in seizing the chances clarity offers: strict adherence to the federal constitution and the mandate of the people.

They should seek the mandate of the people according to the federal constitution without pandering to unelected elites and associating themselves with corruption-tainted leaders and political parties.

If they do it, the old would have passed and the new come and it will be good for the leaders and the people!

Happy New Year! Looking forward to a good year!

Merry Christmas, folks!

Uncategorized

This Christmas, as it has been for all the festive seasons this year, the celebrations are muted. The decor in the shopping malls is less elaborate with smaller crowds. Retail outlets are cutting costs, I guess, and people are tightening their belts.

Instead, the crowds can be found in churches attending Christmas plays, musicals, canticles, cantatas and get-togethers for the various age groups! This is where the true meaning of Christmas is celebrated and no matter what the economic conditions the faithful gather!

Like I have always said, Christmas is for everyone, the spiritual and the non-spiritual. Anyone can fit in and enjoy and catch the hope the season offers.

So, folks, no matter what your circumstances, take something from this season and hopefully it will help you find your way through the difficult times. O, O, tidings of comfort and joy! Comfort and joy! O, O tidings of comfort and joy …… .

Merry Christmas, all!

‘Tis the season again!

Uncategorized,

This December I am glad for the distraction of the glitter and tinsel the Christmas season offers! I am not one who is taken up by the elaborate decor and sparkling lights that some people go to great lengths to put up. I don’t mind it; it lends a certain brightness to the season and I see it as an invitation to enjoy what the season means.

For my home, the decorations are minimal but I strive to maximize the opportunities to enjoy more people during this season. But, as the years go by, you lose a number of people along the way, and this season it is a noticeable hole.

Being in that mood and made worse by the latest political shenanigan of going after an old man with an impressive record as a prime minister, over his role concerning that tiny rock island Batu Puteh, the Christmas ambience took some of that heaviness off!

Walking into a mall to get groceries, I actually took in the atmosphere and lingered here and there in the midst of that decor and forgot that that political episode was a new low, even by Malaysian standards!

I am quite politically involved, but once I have written what I want to write I forget about it and go on to the next thing. But this time, I couldn’t shake off the feeling that this was not right at all — going after an old man who served the nation even in his old age. It just shows we are not good people. Not good people at all! The world sees it.

Hopefully, the Christmas season will help people see that intrinsically we are better than this and bring out that better nature.

So, there will be no more political comments from me in this blog this December. I want to refresh my spirit with Christmas, enjoy the people the season brings around, take in the decor while shopping for presents for my little relatives, try out different foods, and just revel in the happiest of the holidays!

Next year, hopefully, there will be better things to write about. Until then, folks, season’s greetings!

Will the MPs act?

Uncategorized, ,

Another Umno politician has been given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA). Former prime minister Najib Razak and former Treasury secretary-general Mohd Irwan Serigar Abdullah got off their six CBT charges involving 1MDB-linked company International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC) with a DNAA.

Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Muhammad Jamil Hussin granted the DNAA on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to hand over classified documents crucial to the case.

Reacting to the decision, Pejuang information chief Rafique Rashid Ali, who is a lawyer, said that “Section 2C of the Official Secrets Act 1972 (Act 88) is clear that the power to remove the ‘official secret’ status of documents lies with the minister”.

The question that is asked is why a minister or the prime minister had failed to lift the official secret status of the documents even though this case has been going on for six years. So far, typically, no answer has been given.

What is even more disappointing is that not one MP queried the prime minister regarding this issue either through press statements or in the Dewan Rakyat.

This seems to be the characteristic of our MPs. Don’t debate. As a result, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is carrying along unchecked. Whether the government was formed democratically, whether separation of powers is practised, the granting of government contracts like the 5G to royalty-linked companies, the Mufti Bill, the House Arrest Bill that is part of Budget 2025 all touch on the federal constitution but the people don’t see the MPs fighting to see that the constitution is followed.

Then, Anwar goes off on his globe-trotting trips and no MP queries whether the PM is spending more time abroad than addressing issues at home. So far not one issue whether abroad or at home has been resolved.

Anwar has left a trail of missteps, particularly in making undemocratic decisions. All the issues mentioned earlier, his performance and the latest, namely the DNAA to Najib and Irwan Serigar, raise issues as to whether he is following democratic principles and acting consistently with the federal constitution or acting in whatever way he is inclined to.

These are very serious issues, and it is the people’s right to have the MPs address them. That fundamental duty of a MP is not evident among our MPs. Malaysian MPs must be the first MPs in the world who know exactly what is going on and will not take steps to restore constitutional fidelity.

Silence means tacit consent, and the MPs will have to answer to the people.

Neither is it enough for the Opposition to just reject a controversial bill because it will nevertheless be passed since Anwar has a two-thirds majority coerced by a MoU. And more constitutionally controversial bills will follow. Unless the Opposition works very hard to win government MPs over to deprive the government of the needed majority to pass every such bill. That would be a monumental task and an exercise in futility!

Nevertheless, the MPs must query the PM. He must be grilled until a satisfying answer is given that conforms to the constitution. If he fails to answer, then the MPs must act. The constitution offers avenues for MPs to seek recourse to protect the people’s interests.

Seeking a change through constitutional recourse does not mean going against any one or any institution or any law. It is simply exercising the constitutional rights of the citizens which MPs have been entrusted to undertake.

It takes courage and leadership to check a government that is erring, and it is the responsibility of the MPs to provide that check and balance. They must not let the people down. And they must act now if they want a government that abides by parliamentary democracy. If MPs wait until the next general election to form a new government, the federal constitution would have been changed without the mandate of the people.

The MPs must not let that happen. But, will they act now? That is what the people are yet to witness.

The people need answers; MPs must ensure it

Uncategorized, , ,

Americans voted and have elected Donald Trump to the White House for a second term. In shocked disbelief, the Democrats are reeling in their defeat, struggling to come to terms with the fact that every voting demographic gave overwhelming support to Trump.

Judging from the reactions to the outcome of the vote, the Democrats’ disappointment is visceral and real and, sometimes, ugly but they must be commended for one thing: True to the spirit of democracy, they have respected the vote of the majority.

Unlike in Malaysia, the Democrats did not resort to non-democratic means to “save the USA” — and, perhaps, the world — from what many may describe as an erratic clown. The Democrats may express their extreme displeasure at the way their fellow Americans voted but Trump will remain the president of the US of A. That will not change.

It is a characteristic Malaysian politicians need to learn and practise. The kind of government we have now — whether it’s a democracy or not, and, therefore, whether it is constitutional or not — is due to the fact that our MPs did not respect the vote of the majority in the 2022 general elections.

Faced with a hung Parliament, instead of negotiating with other parties to form a majority government, the MPs went along with the previous king’s plan to form a unity government to “save Malaysia” with Anwar Ibrahim as the prime minister. The unity government, however, excluded Perikatan Nasional (PN) which at that time had the support of the bumiputra majority, the majority community in Malaysia.

In a crisis such as this, MPs should not “save Malaysia” at the expense of the constitution. A solution must be found according to the constitution. Was forming a government by appointment rather than election constitutional? That is the question that should have been explained by Anwar. But an explanation was never given. But, it is because of that decision that we are in the state we are in today.

The people don’t know if the incumbent unity government is a constitutional government or not and we deserve an explanation. Due to much criticism about the way issues were subsequently handled, recently, Fuziah Salleh, the new secretary-general of Anwar’s party, PKR, when queried, publicly declared that the unity government was formed by the mandate of the previous king.

Once again, Anwar made no effort to explain if this was constitutional. Perhaps, it also explains his silence. Most of the controversies that occurred after Anwar became PM were related to the race, religion and royalty(3R) issues. Anwar may have thought that the 3R issues come under the purview of the king and refrained from commenting or interfering.

That may be so, but, as PM it is his responsibility to resolve whatever issue involving the citizens because it comes under governance. Such constitutional governance is yet to be evident in Anwar’s administration. Instead we are met with silence, whether it was the socks, heels, ehailing driver, horse stable worker beaten up by Pahang royalty, BlackRock and now U Mobile issue. An explanation has not been forthcoming.

There were two exceptions, however: After a long time, the policeman involved in the ehailing driver’s case was finally charged in court and fined. The royalty and his cahoots involved in the horse stable worker’s case were charged in court. The latter happened only when a Pahang prince called for the case to be investigated saying that no one was above the law.

The rule of law is that the police act on a police report lodged and do not procrastinate. When they do, it is the responsibility of the PM to advise and direct the police. But, this government says nothing, steering clear of any issue involving royalty. The people just want to know if this is constitutional. The PM must give an explanation.

The most recent case where the PM has maintained his silence involves U Mobile, a small niche foreign-owned mobile network operator (MNO). Anwar set the stage before the issue became public. He informed the Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat who informed the House that the PM would not be answering questions at the Dewan Rakyat and that his ministers would take over as the PM would be abroad.

Which PM would dare announce that he/she would not be available for a parliamentary sitting? This is the clearest incident so far to prove that Anwar does not want to be accountable to the people.

Soon after the Speaker’s announcement, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) announced that U Mobile would be the MNO in charge of implementing the second 5G network. No explanation was given as to why the bigger local MNOs who were in the running were overlooked.

What should be noted is that the second largest shareholder in U Mobile is the current king with a 22.3 percent stake. Article 34(3) of the federal constitution states that the Agong shall not actively engage in any commercial enterprise.

Queried in the Dewan Rakyat, in the absence of the PM, Communications Minister and government spokesman Fahmi Fadzil claimed it was entirely MCMC’s decision and the government was not involved in the selection process but he did not address the issue as to whether it was constitutional.

MPs, especially Opposition MPs must call out the government when it seems to be acting against the constitution and demand an explanation, especially with regards to bills. The Federal Territories Muftis Bill, for example, is thoroughly unconstitutional as it gives autonomy to an unelected government servant and must be thrown out.

MPs must likewise go through Budget 2025 which is currently being debated and point out its shortcomings and hold the government to addressing them until they are changed or dropped. The Budget includes a totally needless House Arrest bill and states a number of plans without giving comprehensive details on implementation.

The definition of the T15 group who will be exempted from targeted subsidies is one example. The definition is yet to be clarified and how it will be implemented is yet to be seen.

Another point that MPs must take note of in Budget 2025 is its commitment to private-public participation. While the latter is stated, how this will be carried out needs to be made public. Who are the private partners? Royalty-linked companies, foreign multi-national companies? All these must be brought to the open and examined if they are constitutional and if they will be carried out within the accepted role of the government.

If these issues are not raised and a satisfactory answer obtained, we can expect more cases like BlackRock and U Mobile and the socks and heels incidents and abuse of citizens to happen in the future. To prevent that from happening, and to prevent further infringement of the federal constitution, the MPs must act now. If they don’t, what happens next will be entirely on them.

If the PM will not give satisfactory explanations and maintains his silence then these controversial and unconstitutional bills and problematic Budget 2025 must not be passed.