Category Archives: Uncategorized

Happy Deepavalli, folks!

Uncategorized,

It’s the Festival of Lights, of Light triumphing over darkness, something all of us can celebrate. So, let’s all celebrate with our Hindu relatives, friends, colleagues and neighbours!

The celebrations may be muted due to economic factors but can be just as joyful in the company of the people around you.

Right up to last year, the shops I visit regularly to get Indian food always closed for one or two days over Deepavalli. This year, however, a few are staying open! It’s the sign of the times. No matter what the media reports of the billions we are getting in investments, at the ground level, it is getting tougher and tougher to survive.

Yet, in the true spirit of Light overcoming darkness, we can be hopeful. So, folks, forget about the dismal outlook and enjoy the good people and things we have!

Happy Deepavalli, all!

The MoU: A tool to remove checks and balances?

Uncategorized, ,

It is extremely difficult to discern the sincerity of the motive in the government’s unilateral attempt to bind Opposition MPs to a Memorandum of Understanding to restrict their rights to free debate in the Dewan Rakyat in exchange for constituency development funds.

The recent draft MoU that Deputy Prime Minister Fadillah Yusof presented to the Opposition for consideration which the latter unanimously and flatly rejected is objectionable at all levels.

Firstly, why would a government, presumably with a majority, initiate an MoU to restrict the free speech of its MPs?

In summarising the key points, the MoU states that in return for equal privileges in the Dewan Rakyat, the MPs must declare their assets and uphold human rights and freedoms for everyone and freedom and equal protection against discrimination or incitement. It also stressed the need for MPs to condemn hate speech and incitement against the royal institution and Malay rulers.

The language is vague and unspecific which means anything the MPs say about race, religion and royalty (the 3R issues), can be constituted as incitement. How then are the MPs to debate?

Would an elected government representing the majority ever have the brazenness to tie the hands of its MPs, and especially its Opposition who serves as the checks and balances to the government? No credible elected government representing the people would do that but an unelected appointed autocratic government that wants to remove all checks and balances in the Dewan Rakyat would to advance its plans without opposition.

Secondly, the reason given for the MoU is to establish political stability. This is an inexplicable explanation. The incumbent unity government has more than a two-thirds majority, thanks to the MoU Anwar signed with the parties that turned around to support him. The key point of the MoU is that they support him to the full term.

That was how Anwar “got” his majority — not through the democratic process of negotiations and agreement sealed by a vote of confidence in Parliament. Anwar did face and pass a confidence vote but only after the participating parties in the unity government had signed the MoU, which means their MPs were not free to vote as they liked.

While his “majority” was undemocratically obtained, the fact is that in the Dewan Rakyat, he has a majority. Because he has a contrived majority, there is very little possibility for the Opposition to topple him and if they could they would have done it early in Anwar’s term.

In other words, he doesn’t need the Opposition, so what is the motive in limiting the freedoms of MPs for a political stability that already exists?

Unless, of course, he is not confident of his undemocratically obtained “majority”.

There is one reason why he may not feel very confident of his majority. The MoU that the parties in the unity government signed is between parties and binds parties with the expectation that the parties will bind their MPs.

Technically, however, the MoU does not bind the individual MPs. They are free to vote as they please but so far they have followed the party lines. If the issue is contentious enough for MPs to vote against party lines and according to their conscience, that may mean Anwar won’t get a majority.

That option exists for MPs but they may have to face consequences like expulsion. Under the new anti-hopping law, however, they may lose their parties but they keep their seats. It is risk worth taking to restore adherence to the constitution.

MPs need to understand that the nation comes first and in a crisis do the right thing which the people are yet to witness.

Thirdly, motives aside, the MoU is undemocratic and unconstitutional. It restricts the rights of the MPs to free speech in the Dewan Rakyat contrary to the same rights the federal constitution confers to MPs to touch on any issue of interest to the nation.

Why the prime minister will initiate a MoU that goes against the constitution is baffling, to say the least. The PM’s job is to uphold the constitution, not act contrary to it. The latter is unacceptable of a PM of a parliamentary democracy.

Lastly, the MoU is totally unnecessary. Everything stated and implied in the MoU is covered by the federal constitution. So, why is there a need to come up with another document to repeat the same issues and bind MPs and make the MoU supercede the constitution?

MPs should no longer tolerate such open disrespect of the constitution by a PM. Anwar is simply showing a lack of skills in understanding the constitution and governing according to its spirit, intent and purpose. How then can he be PM?

Considering the above there is no good reason for this MoU. If the intention is to find a way to give equal funding, there is no need for it as equal funding was a promise Anwar made to the electorate and he should just honour that promise and give it without conditions. But then, again, he made a slew of promises and he is yet to start delivering.

Late Friday night, there were reports that Anwar has challenged the Opposition to table a no-confidence motion in the coming parliamentary session starting on Oct 14 in response to calls for him to step down. He said he would approve such a motion.

The PM can show bravado knowing fully well that the partners in his unity government are bound by a MoU. If he were committed to democratic practices, he would, instead make it a rule or law to enable MPs to table a no-confidence vote and then prove his own majority by law. It then becomes standard practice to test the majority support for a PM. He doesn’t do that but boldly throws a challenge which everyone can see through.

But, this time, the Opposition should take up the offer on the condition that the PM invalidates the MoU that binds the political parties in the unity government, and calls for a bloc vote not a voice vote. For what he has done, has failed to do and seems intent on doing, the PM’s support must be tested — without a MoU.

If a no-confidence vote against him is passed not only Anwar but his unity government must step down and the proper democratic process must be initiated to find a PM with a majority to form a legitimate and constitutional government.

Until the PM’s support is tested, his position will always be tenuous.

My Merdeka wish …

Uncategorized,

After 67 years of independence and living through the massive progress we made from an underdeveloped nation to a nearly developed nation, I just have one wish for Malaysia.

I wish our MPs would start conducting themselves according to the federal constitution!

Since the infamous 2020 Sheraton Moves, we have had three administrations whose legitimacy, and hence, constitutionality were questioned because they were formed without proof of majority. All the political instability that the people have been subjected to since then is because our MPs, either out of ignorance or political expediency, failed to act according to the constitution.

The people would have been spared the stress of being subjected to a government whose legitimacy remains in question if MPs had acted according to the constitution and the principles of democracy. If they don’t know what is expected of them under the constitution, then they should study the constitution and demonstrate to the people that they are able to make decisions within the ambit of the constitution.

The first duty of MPs is to form a legitimate, constitutional government because that is the basis of political stability.

If our MPs can only indulge in politicking and can not find the will nor courage to form a constitutionally correct, elected government of the people, then they are not fit to be MPs, and definitely should not be in government.

Our MPs should know what to do. If, after 67 years of development, they don’t, it is best they step down from government and facilitate the formation of a legitimate and constitutional government.

That’s my Merdeka wish.

Lessons from the Nenggiri by-election

Uncategorized, ,

There are a couple of takeaways from the Nenggiri state by-election. The most important of these is that there are pockets of voters in the PAS-held states of the North who are not die-hard PAS supporters. Given alternatives or a lack of them, they may vote for PAS’ opponents.

The seat was held by Umno since 2004 but was won by Perikatan Nasional (PN) in the state elections last year by a very narrow margin of 810 votes in the green wave that swept across the northern states. The seat was declared vacant because PN’s Bersatu candidate who won it lost his party membership.

With PAS holding sway in the north, the chances of Umno winning back the seat were seemingly slim. But Umno won, and not by any small margin but by a thumping 3,352-vote majority! According to political scientist Bridget Welsh, the main reason for Umno’s win was due to a swing from the youth, women and economically disadvantaged voters. (A Nenggiri balm: Umno’s by-election flip, Malaysiakini.)

Umno must also be credited for its success because it conducted a well-organized campaign where Umno members did considerable leg work which paid off among the swing voters of youth, women and the poor.

This is the first takeaway from the Nenggiri by-election. It is proof that there are peripheral seats in PAS-influenced areas which, with a good fight, can be won by a non-PAS party candidate, including PAS’ partner in PN, Bersatu.

The main reason why Umno was able to maintain the support of the Malay majority for nearly six decades is the promise of funds that is available to them if Umno leads the government.

When Umno lost that majority support to PN in GE15, it was premised on the belief that PN, having formed a Malay-majority government after the Sheraton Move, would continue to form the next government with their support. That did not materialise and Umno now back in government could be seen as being in the position to help the poorer Malay voters who are more dependent on government help.

This is the second takeaway from the Nenggiri buy-election that PN should take note of. PN can not be complacent in the belief that Malay support, especially for PAS and hence, PN, is guaranteed. PN parties have to work hard to keep the peripheral seats that PAS now holds and win new Malay-majority seats.

PN must start work now to develop allies with whom it can face the next general election in the confidence that with Malay support it can and will form the next government. If that confidence is not communicated to the Malay voters, PN will lose more seats.

The third takeaway from the Nenggiri by-election is that Bersatu needs to field its own candidates in those seats where there are segments of Malay voters who have not bought into PAS’ Islamic agenda. Those seats number more than the conservative seats and Bersatu needs to field candidates who can appeal to this segment of voters nationwide.

PN is claiming that money politics played a key role among 2,000 of its supporters in the Nenggiri by-election who were bribed or intimidated, and who didn’t vote or voted for Umno. If this were true, it could have only happened if these voters lost confidence in Bersatu. Bersatu needs to start restoring the confidence of its members.

There were some reports which claimed that some Bersatu members, unhappy with the leadership, revolted by not campaigning or voting. That’s the most important reason for Bersatu to resolve its leadership issues according to what the members want.

If PN wants to form the next government, it must not make the mistakes it made in the Nenggiri by-elections and start acting proactively now to build up its membership and develop allies and a larger grassroots base.

Bersatu is the threat to Umno, so buck up

Uncategorized, ,

Opposition coalition Perikatan Nasional’s (PN) anchor party, Bersatu, has suffered a number of blows in recent months. Though its support rose in recent by-elections it did not win any new seat. Then there is the talk that in a couple of constituencies its members have left in the hundreds.

The biggest hit, however, was when the Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat refused to declare the seats of six rogue members who lost their party memberships as vacant. That was hard to accept because if they were declared vacant, by-elections would have been called and it would have given Bersatu a chance to gauge its support in these constituencies and, most importantly, whether that that support has increased.

If there were by-elections, and support for Bersatu had gone up, that would have been a major embarrassment to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s unity government as it would have meant that the six rogue Bersatu members had stood up in the Dewan Rakyat and pledged allegiance to the PM without the support of their voters. The Speaker’s decision effectively spared the incumbent government of that embarrassment.

This episode, however, shows that the government is worried about the increasing support for Bersatu.

Although a number of former Umno members have joined Bersatu’s main PN partner PAS rather than Bersatu, it is another indication that the source of the government coalition’s worry is Bersatu rather than PAS.

On the surface of it, it would seem that PAS is the preferred party to join instead of Bersatu. That may be true in Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu and in some other constituencies in the rest of Peninsular Malaysia where PAS has some influence.

It is, however, a foregone conclusion that in these states, the majority of Malay support is for PAS. Umno, the only Malay-based party in the coalition government, has no illusions that it can win back that support from PAS.

Even in the coming state by-election in Nenggiri, while Umno is putting up a spirited campaign against Bersatu’s candidate, it is aware that with PAS backing Bersatu it is an uphill battle to win the seat. They only want to test to see if any support is swinging back to Umno.

Even if Umno loses the seat it would not be a great loss because it is a PAS-influenced seat. Unable to beat it in the northern states, Umno may even be willing to partner with PAS if the latter is willing.

In the rest of Peninsular Malaysia, however, the battle for the Malay vote is not between Umno and PAS but between Umno and Bersatu.

Umno’s inclusion in the coalition government is to give it the advantage of incumbency to strengthen the party. In GE15, Umno won 26 seats against Bersatu’s 25 which is a close call. With PN steadily increasing its vote share in every by-election and state election the seats may tip in Bersatu’s favour and Umno will end up the loser.

That is a possibility Umno, and, hence the coalition government, will not want to see happening until the next general elections when they will have no choice but to face reality.

Bersatu thus needs to understand that Umno and the incumbent coalition government will do everything in its power to prevent Bersatu from proving its growing Malay support base and only allow it in the next general election.

The party must do everything it can now to counter these efforts. It needs to be ready now not just in the next general elections. In the event there are by-elections it must have the confidence to field its own candidates and not rely on PAS.

In getting ready to win, Bersatu needs to consider the following:

1. It must resolve its leadership problems. It need not follow party president Muhyiddin Yassin’s formula where he remains as president and Hamzah Zainuddin becomes the deputy president. They should stand for elections and whoever the party members nominate should also stand for elections.

Elected leaders mean they have grassroots support and that provides stability.

2. Bersatu needs to change its legal advisers and hire lawyers who have a broader, contextual and deeper understanding of the law to advise them so that the party can take on the government every time it acts outside of the parameters granted by the federal constitution.

The party must be seen as being committed to upholding the federal constitution at all costs. If it bravely stands up for the constitution, without doubt, the people will back it.

3. The party, while sticking to its Malay-majority agenda, must make it apparent that it also includes and respects the rights of minorities.

Doing the above will build up its confidence to show itself as competent, constitutional and grassroots-centred and that may attract more capable leaders and supporters to join it .

Take the fight to Parliament, not the police

Uncategorized, ,

In Malaysia’s ever bubbling hot political culture, politicians and their supporters follow an odd practice. If they don’t like what someone has said and if it doesn’t amount to libel, they will make a police report.

They won’t counter the statement with their own points of view. Instead they will file a police report. As a result, a number of politicians have been called up for “investigations” under various Acts like failing to meet the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 or the Communications or Multimedia Act and even the outdated Sedition Act 1948.

Just recently, lawyer and Pejuang Information chief, Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali, was hauled up for questioning under the Sedition Act for calling Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim a “scammer” at a “Rakyat Lawan Anwar” rally held outside the prime minister’s official residence in Putrajaya last month.

At the rally, in his speech, titled “Scammer, scammer, Anwar scammer” Rafique alleged Anwar had failed to fulfill his promises, and hence, the name, scammer.

Name calling and making statements that imply misconduct should not be acceptable in any political culture but it is done in Malaysia. Anwar, himself, has implied that leaders before him have — in his often repeated words — stolen from the government and they should return the money to the people. In his case he gave no proof while Rafique give real examples of the “scams” yet Rafique got into trouble while Anwar got away with it!

The police report was made in Kangar, Perlis, by some obscure NGO. Doesn’t the police have anything better to do than investigate police reports on politicians, especially by some supporter in the far corner of the country?

It’s no wonder that our police can’t focus on crime prevention because they are distracted by the numerous police reports made against leaders and, particularly one group of people, lawyers! Most are “investigated” and get off free. All the more reason why it is an unnecessary waste of time!

If politicians and their supporters don’t like what they hear, issue a press statement to counter it no matter from which corner of the world!

If it is slander or libel, take the politician to court. But, if it’s just an angry statement even if substantiated should the politician be investigated under the Seditions Act?

Everything, however, can’t be legislated. Every aspect of life can’t be ordered by law. Much of culture is evolved by conventions and common practices. So, why don’t our politicians start by developing such practices?

Begin, by deciding, there will be no more name-calling and hitting below the belt. Sometimes, however, some things need to be said for very good reasons. In such rare cases, a risk is involved in making a point but it must be well-thought out and backed by facts. If that risk is worth taking for the benefits it would bring the people, say it but be prepared to face the consequences.

In such cases, it is better to say it in the Dewan Rakyat. With facts and logic, anything can be argued in the Dewan Rakyat. Our MPs, however, have yet to see themselves as equals and empowered by the federal constitution and find confidence in that to stand up and fight instead of giving in and making unconstitutional deals to survive. It is the latter two tendencies that are the underlying causes of all the political instability we have been facing since the Sheraton Move.

When they begin to make their words count in Parliament, there will be no need for name-calling, hitting below the belt, making police reports and making unconstitutional deals “to save the country” which are never justified.

Stick to the constitution and fight it out in the Dewan Rakyat. When the fight goes to Parliament, the instability is contained and the political temperature drops.

There still will be the mudslinging and the police reports but they will be much less.

Today, this is all I have to say: A little wisdom!

The Speaker’s word has consequences

Uncategorized, , ,

The Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat’s declaration that Bersatu’s six rogue MPs, who went against the party’s directive to affirm their loyalty to the party, get to keep their seats, raised a storm of protests because it has created a couple of problems.

As a result of the Anti-Hopping Law (AHL) passed in 2022, Article 49A was amended to read: Clause (1) of the new Article 49A provides, inter alia, that a member of the Dewan Rakyat (‘MP’) shall cease to be a member of that House and his seat shall become vacant if the MP:

(a) having been elected to the Dewan Rakyat as a member of a political party, resigns as, or ceases to be, a member of that political party; or

(b) having been elected to the Dewan Rakyat otherwise than as a member of a political party (i.e. an independent candidate), joins a political party as a member.

Article 49A also states that an expelled MP would keep his seat. In the case of the Bersatu 6, they were not expelled. Under the party’s amended rules, Bersatu sent a directive to all its MPs to pledge their loyalty to the party and abide by party decisions. They defied the directive and automatically lost their membership.

Bersatu’s amended law is similar to the DAP’s and Umno’s. These parties amended the laws to prevent their MPs from joining another party.

Speaker Johari Abdul’s justification was that it went against the rights of MPs to free speech.

The consequences of the Speaker’s decision are worrying and it is no wonder that they evoked such angry protests.

Firstly, when a party according to the law terminates an MP’s party membership, can the Speaker overrule it? Secondly, can the Speaker by his decision make a law inoperative? By saying that the Bersatu 6 can keep their seats — though not with the party but elsewhere — isn’t it going against the AHL which clearly states that if MPs cease to be members of the party on whose platform they won the seats, they can’t be MPs and their seats become vacant? How then can the AHL be applied to rebelling MPs? What’s the use of the AHL?

Does the Speaker have the authority to do either? These are some of the issues that the courts will now have to clarify.

The fear is that the Speaker’s decision nullifies the AHL as MPs now can go against party lines and still be MPs and keep their seats. Which suggests that MPs now can skip, hop, jump and leapfrog to join other parties and change the numbers in a coalition.

More than any MP, shouldn’t the Speaker make decisions that clearly uphold the rule of law in an assembly of lawmakers? While, no doubt, the Speaker and, likewise a PM or a king, has discretionary powers shouldn’t those powers be confined within the ambit of the law and executed in the spirit and intent of the law? Anything else is abuse of position.

The question MPs need to ask is not whether the Speaker has discretionary powers but whether those discretionary powers were used according to the rule of law.

If they weren’t, the MPs should find out from their constituents how they are to represent them in the Dewan Rakyat and take every step needed to restore the rule of law in the Dewan Rakyat.

In addition, it appear as if the Speaker made a decision to favour the incumbent government in maintaining a two-thirds majority — and failed to show his neutrality. The loss of the Bersatu 6’s seats will deprive Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s government of a two-thirds majority which he needs to amend laws. This is a government without the mandate of the people but in power and therefore may introduce laws not mandated by the people.

MPs need to be wary of any attempt to introduce laws never raised by the people which may be sneakily sprung upon the MPs and passed without debate because the MPs were taken by surprise.

Now, more than ever, MPs need to be on guard because, by a twist of fate, as a result of Johari’s decision, they are free to vote according to their conscience and hold themselves accountable to their constituents.

Bersatu has said it will take the issue to court. While it goes to court, MPs should not be waiting twiddling thumbs. What the Speaker has done is a very serious issue. The law empowers MPs to act in the interests of the people they represent and they should take decisive action to ensure that the Dewan Rakyat upholds the rule of law.

I have only briefly explained the issues here. Malaysiakini carried a number of good articles that covers all the issues regarding Johari’s decision today (July 12, 2024). It is good for us Malaysians to know what these issues are so that we are not taken for a ride.

Langkah Muar is worth emulating

Uncategorized, , ,

Some people see Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman’s 200km run from Muar to Parliament to raise funds for his constituency as an effort to gain sympathy. Well, that may be one of the reasons.

As an opposition MP, he has been deprived of a RM20 million allocation to his constituency which all government MPs get. Opposition MPs therefore can not service their constituency in the way government MPs can. This may translate to a loss of motive to continue supporting opposition MPs unless the voters’ loyalty to their candidates remains intact.

So, people should be sympathetic towards opposition MPs and support them in every way they can to ensure that the government has a strong opposition.

Another reason for Syed Saddiq’s Langkah Muar from July 1-4 was to draw attention to the government’s refusal to give allocations to all constituencies. Why the government does not want to provide equal constituency funding to all MPs is beyond understanding.

According to a Malaysiakini report (July 4, 2024), Ilham Centre executive director Hisommudin Bakar said the government wanted assurances from the opposition for political stability and their acceptance of the legitimacy of this government until the 16th general election.

Both conditions are undemocratic. It is the constitutional right of voters to want a change of government and they should not be robbed of that right. The legitimacy of the current unity government has always been in question because of the way it was formed with an appointed prime minister. In a democracy prime ministers are elected by the majority.

Hisommudin also said that the government wanted a similar arrangement like “the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Transformation and Political Stability between Putrajaya and Pakatan Harapan during the administration of Ismail Sabri Yaakob”.

In a democracy, a government does not sign an MoU to prevent the Opposition from taking over the government. Any party can initiate a coalition to form a majority government and that is the right of the people that must always be left as a possibility. Signing away that right isn’t democracy.

It was by choice that the Pakatan Harapan as the Opposition then took the initiative to sign the MoU with Sabri. Sabri didn’t bribe them with a promise of constituency funding.

It is a precedent that the current Opposition should not emulate because it is undemocratic.

The Anwar Ibrahim administration is continuing a practice of the past of depriving the Opposition of constituency funds. True to his promise of reform, Anwar should break this practice and not use it to force support for his administration.

Did Syed Saddiq succeed in drawing attention to the plight of the opposition MPs? That is hard to determine. But, I like to think that the people are aware, but, perhaps, they think that there is nothing they can do.

That, however, is not quite true. Syed Saddiq must be given credit for taking the bull by the horns. He could have sat back and limited his service to what his funds allowed. Or, made deals and pledged his support to Anwar, which are what our MPs are prone to do to survive. Or, found the easy way out by announcing in a video that he needs funds and appealed to the people to give it.

He did no such thing. Instead, he held on to democratic principles and, resorted to a healthy, creative and law-abiding way to raise funds for his constituency. He ran.

Syed Saddiq ran and the RM160,000 he collected was honest-to-goodness freely given money.

He did what he could do to solve a problem. That is to be emulated.

We need political leaders who will solve problems, not make things worse. Syed Saddiq’s run was an attempt to solve a problem too big for one person to undertake. But it was a good start. And, more politicians should join him should there be a next attempt at solving a problem. And the people, too, should join him to symbolically declare they would support every effort by leaders to solve problems in the proper way, according to the rule of law.

This young politician is showing that he is not going to take things lying down. He will find a way to lessen the burden of the people and not just depend on the government to keep helping him. That is an attitude that should be applauded and the people should rally behind him.

PM’s silence doesn’t reflect democracy

Uncategorized, ,

When a prime minister says nothing about issues of concern to the public, the people get worried and, rightly, so.

Since November 2022, when he was appointed as PM, Anwar Ibrahim has maintained a non-committal silence on all the national issues, especially those involving race, religion and royalty (3R), that raised a hue and cry from the people.

Whether it was the KK Mart socks followed by the heel issue, attacks on footballers, the e-hailing driver’s case, the Asia Mobiliti case, the Blackrock case or most recently the Tengku Mahkota Johor’s recent outburst about treating Johor as a partner and not a state, Anwar made no comments.

In the absence of any comment from the PM to assure the people that the issues are being resolved in the proper constitutional ways, the public would naturally become more anxious, and resort to rumour-mongering, speculating and creating false narratives based on limited facts. Or, they turn off from politics and express their protests in the next election if they have a choice of a suitable candidate.

So, is it surprising that the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) is working overtime to remove “fake” news? Or, why Malaysia has dropped by 34 places in this year’s Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index?

It simply goes without saying that the less correct information is released to the public, the more fake news we will get. The solution is not more media control but greater dissemination of government information.

For the first time, however, today, Anwar commented on the MAHB-Blackrock issue, saying that Malaysia’s economy would be impacted if he cancelled all ties with Israel-owned companies.

Blackrock is a US-based investment company which has ties with companies funding Israel’s war on Gaza and is said to have bought over Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP), one of the companies in the consortium planning to buy into Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhd (MAHB).

While it is commendable that Anwar broke his silence, he did not clarify if there was a change in policy in allowing a GLC to be owned by non-government interests. Neither did he explain why he had severely criticised companies supporting Israel’s war on Gaza and yet he kept mum when a GLC was willing to sell its shares to one such company.

That is the crux of the issue. He said one thing and did another. If private equity takes control of a GLC which owns national assets, the government loses control of sovereignty of its national assets. This is of paramount national importance.

Perikatan Nasional MP Wan Fahysal Wan Kamal has submitted a motion to discuss this issue at the Dewan Rakyat. Hopefully the Speaker will allow the motion as it is of great public importance and MPs must be given the chance to debate the issue to show if the PM is acting on behalf of the interests of the people.

Ultimately, a PM’s silence on national issues is a clear indication that he is not accountable to the people. If he is accountable to the people, he will understand the need to inform the people of his plans and the changes he wants to make and he would be sensitive to the feedback.

If he does not address these concerns of the people, he will know that he risks losing the confidence of Parliament and even his seat as an MP in his own constituency.

No credible prime minister elected to that position any where in the world has done what Anwar has done: kept his silence. All engage the people because they understand that dissemination of information and receiving feedback is fundamental to a thriving democracy.

Anwar was appointed — not elected — as PM and, therefore, he may feel that he is accountable not to the people but to those who appointed him. In which case, he may not feel the need to speak on issues that may have a bearing on those who appointed him, fully aware that with their backing he does not need the support of the majority to remain as PM.

Whatever his reasons, his silence is a clear indication that he is not accountable to the people. If he is not accountable to the people then he is not a representative democratic leader in a functioning democracy.

Cronyism or just helping?

Uncategorized, ,

What really is the crux of the controversy involving Asia Mobility Technologies Sdn Bhd (Asia Mobiliti), which was selected for a proof of concept (POC) for the demand-responsive transit (DRT) pilot project by the Selangor state government? Is it cronyism or selection based on required specific skills?

Asia Mobiliti was one of two companies which were given the opportunity to implement the POC. The state government has stated that its request for proposal (RFP) was conducted according to the proper procedures. The state government further clarified that Asia Mobiliti was involved through a RFP and not as a result of a direct negotiation.

This looks above board. The controversy, however, did not arise from these facts but from the fact that Asia Mobiliti’s CEO is Ramachandran Muniandy, who happens to be the husband of Youth and Sports Minister Hannah Yeoh.

The question arises as to whether it is cronyism if a government project is given to a close relative or friend of a government official. In this case the project has not yet been offered; only a RFP has been made for a POC.

While it may be argued that Asia Mobiliti was selected because it had the specific skill-sets to undertake the DRT pilot project, and correct procedures were followed, it, nevertheless, raises suspicions as to whether a factor in Asia Mobiliti’s favour was the fact that Muniandy is Yeoh’s husband.

Those involved in the selection process may be aware of it but there would have been no need to mention it and so the minutes would not show it but who is to say it may not have influenced the outcome? While it can’t be proven, the damage is done as the relationship would naturally raise suspicions.

As a politician, and one who used to be vocal about cronyism, Yeoh should know that if she holds to a high moral standard, she and those close to her would be judged accordingly. She and her husband, as very public figures and abiding by a high moral code, should understand that no public impropriety should even be associated with them.

Perhaps, this will be a good opportunity for personal reflection and correction.

In terms of public service, however, what is of greater importance is whether the Selangor state government made a public announcement for a RFP for a POC for its DRT pilot project. Since the project involves very specific skills, it could have advertised in subject-specific magazines or portals to invite participants. This would exclude any possibility for favouritism in awarding contracts.

Governments, whether state or federal, may, as a policy, have a slew of projects which they may want to offer to small businesses to encourage their development. Such policies are noteworthy but the processes of acquiring these jobs must be streamlined and publicised so that there is fair competition.

In all the previous Umno-led and non-Umno-led governments, this has been a common practice, especially to uplift the bumiputra, which to a large extent was misunderstood by the non-bumiputras who, led by DAP and PKR politicians, roundly criticised the policy as being cronyism.

These same politicians are now in government and seem to be engaged in a similar practice and, it is not surprising that the public has raised a hue and cry over this double standards.

The intent — to encourage small business — is good public service, whether executed by the previous or current governments, but clear guidelines need to be implemented.

As a rule, no relative or close friend of any government official should get government contracts. If they hold shares or positions of influence in companies, clear guidelines must be set so that they will be unable to interfere and influence decisions.

It was hoped that the Pakatan Harapan-led government would reform these procurement processes so that the possibility of corruption is removed but that is yet to take place.

In the absence of such reforms, it can only be expected that cronyism will continue to thrive.