Category Archives: Uncategorized

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various Acts like failing to meet the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 or the Communications or Multimedia Act and even the outdated Sedition Act 1948.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.

Bersatu needs to widen its target voter base

Uncategorized, ,

If the Perikatan Nasional (PN) coalition thought that it could win a mixed seat with a dominant Malay population with only a Malay majority, the Kuala Kubu Baharu state seat by-elections would have put paid that strategy — hopefully!

The PN candidate, Khairul Azhari Saut, lost the seat by 3,869 votes to the winning candidate, DAP’s Pang Sock Tao, who got 14,000 votes. No doubt that the 3,869-vote majority which was less than the 4,119-vote majority that the DAP won for its Pakatan Harapan coalition in the 2022 state elections shows that PN got more votes this time around despite a lower voter turnout of 61.5% from the previous 69%.

This, however, was insufficient to give PN the victory it wanted. PN maintained its core support but it is clear that it failed to win over the support not only of the non-Malays, but the Malays who stayed home, with its race and religion rhetoric and identity politics.

PN needs to accept the fact its conservative support so far has only benefited PAS by giving it control of the four northern states. It will not be replicated in the increasingly urban states going south. In Perak, Pahang, Selangor, Negri Sembilan, Malacca and Johor the majority of the voters are urbanites and they are mainly mixed communities as in KKB.

Therefore, PN has to craft a message that appeals to urbanites in general, without excluding any one community. The coalition should not wait for the next general elections to apply such a strategy to appeal to a cross-section of urban communities.

PN must start now to speak on behalf of urbanites without estranging its core conservative support. In every by-election to come, PN needs to develop a well-thought through manifesto that clearly spells out what it would do for the people should it win at the state and federal levels.

By now, all political parties in this country should understand that no party can win with only a one-race majority. It is not impossible but with a fragmented Malay majority, it is unlikely. The winning formula is to target the ethnic rural communities and a cross-section of urban communities. PN — more than any other coalition — has the advantage of the former; it needs to now focus on the latter.

In KKB, Chinese support for PH remained strong as expected since it is a DAP stronghold and was the main reason why PH kept the seat. Chinese voters are still hopeful that the unity government led by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim will deliver on reforms. That, however, may change in the near future.

In the days to come, it will become increasingly apparent that the Anwar administration is NOT accountable to the people. When that happens, it is the urbanites who will see the reason to shift their support and the party that will be most affected by it will be the DAP. That’s my prediction.

When and if that happens, MCA, the other Chinese-based party, stands to gain if it plays its cards wisely. MIC, the Indian-based party, will also benefit from a loosening of non-Malay support for PH parties. The Indians, however, have many parties to turn to and may not be able to provide a cohesive block of votes to the Opposition.

It will be interesting to see in which direction urban Malay sentiments will be directed. If they are sufficiently disgruntled by the way Anwar is leading — or not leading — the country, they may rise up to support the Opposition.

PN, now in the Opposition, however, must be prepared for such an eventuality and PN party Bersatu must take the lead to act proactively to give the disgruntled mostly urban Malays, Chinese, Indians and other non-Malays a compelling alternative to join it.

Bersatu needs to break away from hiding behind PAS’ narrow mono-ethnic perspective to encompass a Malaysian wide perspective without sacrificing its core Malay-Muslim base.

If it doesn’t, Bersatu will be unable to establish its own core support base and lead the PN to offer a confident challenge to PH’s multi-cultural front.

Events are going to occur that will give Bersatu the opportunities to appeal to a cross-section of urban communities.

Already Bersatu is taking steps to rein in its six errant MPs and assemblyman who announced their support for Anwar. If they don’t fall in line with their party, they may be expelled from the party and by-elections will follow. These by-elections will be a testing ground for Bersatu to prove itself as a viable alternative.

But, Bersatu has to start laying the foundation for success now in anticipation of the opportunities it is going to have in the immediate future.

KKB elections -will it be a vote for all Malaysia?

Uncategorized, , , ,

The big question that will be answered tomorrow in the Kuala Kubu Baharu (KKB) state seat elections is whether the status quo will remain and DAP wins, or change and DAP loses.

For DAP candidate Pang Sock Tao to lose, there should be a significant swing of Malay and non-Malay votes to the Perikatan Nasional (PN) candidate Khairul Azhari Saut.

The conservative Malay vote has more or less reached the maximum and guaranteed for PN. To win, PN needs to swing the non-committal moderate Malay votes to its side. With the kind of rhetoric that PN leaders Muhyiddin Yassin and Abdul Hadi Awang have been spewing out, it can only be hoped that it has not turned off the moderate Malays and the non-Malays.

These leaders have not understood that such rhetoric is simply being heard by the already converted.

If the moderate Malays and non-Malays fail to materialise the swing to PN it would be a costly lesson to PN that its strategies failed to reach out to these groups who would have given them the victory they need.

In the KKB state elections, however, despite PN’s failings mainly due to inexperience, the hope is that the voters will see beyond the tried and useless political rhetoric.

After one-and-a-half years of an appointed and unelected unity government with nothing to show except daily compromises of democratic principles evident to all, with no benefit to the people, voters must realise that they must vote to signal a change.

The unity government cannot offer them anything more than they have already received. Even with a PN candidate in the seat, that may not change. Voters need to understand that in the absence of federal policies to generate incomes for lower-income segments, the current situation will not change.

But, a vote for PN in KKB may herald a change in the state government that ultimately will benefit them and send a strong message to the incumbent federal government that the people don’t support it and thus increase the possibilities of a change of government which will inevitably fill their rice bowl and eventually enlarge it.

Non-Malay voters, however, from past experience, may not be convinced that their rice bowls will be filled and enlarged, and, may choose the DAP as the lesser of the two evils. That is a misconception and may turn against them in the immediate future.

It’s this attitude that caused the DAP to win 42 seats for Pakatan Harapan in the 2022 general elections, but what benefits are the non-Malays getting now? Just more heartaches.

If the non-Malays organised themselves and appointed capable leaders who can engage with PN representatives to find creative solutions to their problems without indebting themselves to PH’s strong backers who have the means to give free land and such, they will be well taken care of and remain free to vote as they please.

The key is not what help the government can give but how they, especially the Indians, can organise themselves to get the help they need while remaining independent and free. Indian voters, especially, must understand this and give themselves a chance to escape a life where they may not be free to vote freely.

If moderate Malays and non-Malays see that giving Bersatu the chance to work with them will be the democratic ways to improving their lives, then, they must understand that a vote for PN is, in fact, a vote for the good of all Malaysia, not just a few multi-cultural groups.

A better life for all Malaysia may not happen immediately; but it will happen as Bersatu gains experience and becomes the dominant party in PN.

A future with PN with the mandate of all Malaysians is any time better than a future with a PH-led government without the mandate of the majority and subservient to its backers.


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.