Category Archives: Uncategorized

Islamic Malaysia — Tuan Ibrahim is right and wrong

Uncategorized, ,

Speaking at a press conference at the PAS muktamar (annual general meeting) last weekend, the party’s deputy president, Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Mat, asserted that Malaysia is not a secular country but Islamic.

Tuan Ibrahim was responding to Kepong DAP MP Lim Lip Eng who had suggested that PAS accept Malaysia as a secular country if it wishes to win non-Malay voters to its side.

Tuan Ibrahim said that Islam is the official religion of the federation, thus, implying Malaysia is an Islamic nation.

Like many others who claim that Malaysia is an Islamic country, Tuan Ibrahim’s belief is also based on the federal constitution which clearly states that Islam is the official religion, the Malay language is the official language, Malay culture is the national culture and the Malays enjoy certain special privileges.

Based on this clearly stated position of the Malays in the federal constitution, and by the fact that they form the majority race in the country, it is correct to say that Malaysia is an Islamic country.

However, drawing the conclusion that Malaysia is an Islamic nation, it must be stressed that by “Islamic”, the federal constitution means “Islamic” in character.

If PAS regards Malaysia as an Islamic nation in character, espousing Muslim values in the administration of government, non-Malays would have no issue with it — as long as non-Malay interests and sensitivities are respected.

But, if PAS uses the same texts in the federal constitution to slippery slide to the conclusion that Malaysia is to be governed by an Islamic form of government, that would be an illogically derived conclusion and unconstitutional. Non-Malays would reject it outright.

Nowhere in the federal constitution is Malaysia described as having an Islamic form of government. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) If our founding fathers wanted an Islamic form of government, it would have been clearly stated in the federal constitution. It is not, because there were significant non-Muslim communities in Malaya at that time like the Chinese, Orang Asli and Indians. Since the formation of Malaysia, these communities now include the Christian bumiputras in Sabah and Sarawak and all these communities would find an Islamic form of government totally unacceptable.

By stating that there is freedom of religions, the federal constitution recognises the rights of non-Muslims and an Islamic form of government would be untenable if those rights are to be accepted and respected.

So, PAS must make that distinction between a government that is Islamic in character and one that is an Islamic state. Without making this distinction, PAS would not be showing its sincerity to abide by the constitution and respect the rights of the non-Malays. It would, in fact, be attaching its own interpretation to the federal constitution to justify its long-held desire to form an Islamic state.

Not only the non-Malays but Malays themselves would not want an Islamic form of government while they may have no issue with a government that is Islamic in character. As such, when voters — Malays and non-Malays — realise that PAS does not make that distinction, it is very likely that PAS will begin to lose support and it is very unlikely that PAS will be able to form the next government.

PAS must also show that it will consider non-Malay interests by seeking to understand the latter’s point of view and not insist on its own.

For example, the “kafir” issue. Tuan Ibrahim explained that the word comes from the Arabic word “kafarah”, which means concealing the truth, and that non-Muslims conceal the truth, which means “they are unable to see the truth in Islam”.

That is his view, but he failed to explain that the usage of the term has made it derogatory and a slight to non-Muslims when they are referred to as “kafir”. If PAS is serious about respecting the rights and feelings of non-Muslims, it should stop using words considered derogatory to non-Muslims.

If PAS doesn’t consider non-Muslim concerns and insists on imposing its views on us, even when it is hurtful, PAS will never get the support of non-Muslim voters nor of the more open-minded Muslim voters who see this as a form of injustice.

This would mean that PAS would be unable to form the next government despite being the leading Malay-based party in the country. In fact, without non-Malay support, even PAS voters will realise the party will be unable to form a government and will gradually withdraw their support.

What really is the PM saying?

Uncategorized,

Amusingly, Perikatan Nasional (PN) MPs taking digs at Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim over his comments on the maha-rich (very rich) in his Budget 2024 speech have made some impact. Anwar responded with a clarification that he wasn’t against the maha-rich but that he wanted to remove the government subsidy given to them.

While the ribbing in Parliament has taken the sting out of the issue, it exposes underlying issues that Anwar has yet to address. He made his intention known but gave no reasons for his decision.

The understanding is that government subsidies to bumiputra businessmen were aimed at giving them the means to increase bumiputra corporate wealth and subsequently increase bumiputra employment in the private sector. That strategy succeeded as bumiputra corporate wealth and employment in the private sector have both increased considerably.

So, what are the implications of wanting to remove the subsidies? Is the prime minister saying that bumiputra corporate wealth and employment have reached an acceptable level and therefore there is no longer any need for further government help to achieve these twin objectives? If that is the rationale for removing the subsidies then that is what the PM must explain.

Perhaps he feels that there are sufficient bumiputra entrepreneurs and they are able to compete on their own and no longer need any help from the government and removing the subsidies is part of his intent to liberalize the private sector. Well, he should say so and explain by giving relevant facts and figures to substantiate his point.

In the absence of a cogent explanation for his decision, it appears as if he made a decision for personal reasons or based on hearsay and demonstrated a lack of understanding of the primary reasons for introducing the subsidies in the first place.

Anwar was a finance minister in the Cabinet of the then Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad under whose leadership strategies were introduced to help bumiputras acquire corporate wealth and increase their employment in the private sector. It is quite surprising that now, as prime minister, Anwar has failed to understand the reasons for the subsidies.

Anwar may feel there has been too much of abuse of these subsidies and he wants to remove the subsidies to cut down on corruption. If there were, he should go for the corrupt. Ironically, some of these maha-rich who were taken to court on corruption charges went off scot-free on his watch and hold significant ministerial posts in his Cabinet but he sees no disconnect between what he says and what happens under his administration.

If the subsidies are removed, would that mean that his government will not help to increase bumiputra corporate wealth and employment in the private sector? If that is his intention, he should make that clear, too, and be prepared to face the storm of opposition for steering away from the affirmative action strategies put in place by his predecessors and risk a further erosion of support for his unity government.

Anwar has announced that private-funded initiatives (PFI) will form the bulk of investments. Who then will be eligible to undertake the PFIs? Those who became rich and maha-rich without subsidies? So, his PFIs will make the rich and especially the maha-rich — who only have the resources to take on a PFI — even richer? Will he then be widening the gap between the rich and the poor or closing it?

Anwar needs to give proper explanations to queries in Parliament based on expert advice, facts, evidence and statistics and refrain from making cavalier statements that only make him look like a spin doctor rather than a prime minister.

Pelangai by-election — PN’s missed chance

Uncategorized, , ,

The political climate was ripe for Perikatan Nasional (PN) to win the Pelangai state by-election last Saturday, but the coalition didn’t. Despite discontent over Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s dismissal not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) and the lack of reforms and economic upliftment under Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s administration, PN lost.

It is, no doubt, to PN’s credit that it lost by a smaller majority of 2,949 compared to the 4,048 majority the Umno candidate, Johari Harun, got in the general election last November. The state by-election was called following Johari’s death in the Elmina plane crash in August.

In a small state constituency such as Pelangai with only 16,456 eligible voters and which is an Umno stronghold, a 3,000-vote loss may seem small. Why then was PN unable to trigger a dramatic swing of that small number to its side and win?

This is the question PN needs to ask and examine the factors that caused their defeat when the political environment was conducive to their win.

Two factors come to mind. Firstly, PN read the ground incorrectly. It read the ground correctly in the six-state elections in August and fielded a majority of PAS candidates in the north where it won three states. But, south of these states, fielding PAS candidates did not produce the desired results.

In the southern states of Selangor and Negeri Sembilan and in Pelangai, it is apparent that Malay voters, particularly Umno voters, do not regard PAS candidates in the same way the conservative north does.

It is also apparent that these same Malay voters want an alternative choice to Umno as evidenced by the fact that an increasing number is choosing PN but there are still many who rather vote for the devil they know than the deep blue sea.

PN needs to address what is withholding the latter from swinging to its side.

Secondly, if PN had fielded a Bersatu candidate in Pelangai, would the results have been different?

As long as PN keeps fielding PAS candidates to ride on the green wave which clearly does not exist in the southern states, it is sending the message that PN will be a PAS-dominant coalition. That is a turn-off to non-Malay voters and many Malay voters.

In the current political climate, where disillusionment with the ruling unity coalition is considerably high and rising as each passing day reveals the behind-the-scenes political hanky-panky going on to keep the unity coalition in government, a PAS-dominant PN may be a reluctant alternative.

Voters may have been open to voting for the PAS candidate in Pelangai. But on the eve of the elections, the PAS-led Terengganu government pulled out its gymnasts from participating in Sukma 2024 on the grounds that their outfits were not Syariah-compliant. At the same time, Bersatu president Muhyiddin Yassin announced that if PN wins Pelangai and triggers a switch of assemblypersons to its side to form the next government, PAS deputy president Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man would be the next menteri besar of Pahang.

Both these announcements would have spooked not just the non-Malays but the Malays themselves who would have an idea as to what to expect should PAS win. That would have been enough to change their mind about voting for the PAS candidate.

Voters, including Malay voters, are not that taken up by PAS. It was apparent in Selangor and Negeri Sembilan. PN needs to ask itself if fielding PAS candidates rather than Bersatu candidates is working in its favour or against it. It is certainly working in favour of Umno because Umno is keeping its seats.

A PAS-dominant PN is not delivering the expected votes in the southern states. But a Bersatu-dominant PN might. A Bersatu-dominant PN will show that PAS’ extreme ways will be held in check and that minority interests will not be suppressed by religious domination and that would have a greater appeal to both the reluctant Malays and non-Malays.

Bersatu needs to start building itself up and fielding capable, people-serving and constitutionally-aware candidates in subsequent elections, especially in the non-PAS-ruled states. They should talk about how they would better the incumbent unity government in terms of policies for Malays and non-Malays and offer effective action plans that will not sideline any community in Malaysia.

Bersatu rather than PAS can demonstrate that PN is a coalition for all Malaysians and that it would not sacrifice non-Malay interests for the sake of a Malay-majority government. As a Malay-majority coalition, if it shows itself inclusive of non-Malay interests, it would have a wider appeal and in that confidence, it should field a Bersatu candidate in the next election should such an opportunity arise.

The results might be the very turnaround PN is seeking. PN won’t know for sure until this strategy is tested.

MP allocations, MPs and Muda

Uncategorized, ,

Muar MP and Muda president Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman has made an impact on Parliament after moving from the government side to the Opposition bench. His queries on allocations for MPs have exposed the unity government’s lack of commitment to reforms.

He raised the issue that his allocation was stopped after he moved to the Opposition bench and said that the Pakatan Harapan (PH) promises of reforms were “lies”.

MP allocations have been a persistent issue raised by Opposition MPs in Parliament and despite a supposedly more liberal and previously reform-minded now status quo maintaining unity government, it remains an unresolved issue.

There really is no good reason why Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim should not give equal allocations to all MPs because it is not his money; it is taxpayers’ money and if a certain amount is allocated to MPs for constituency work, it is democratic to distribute it to all MPs. Failing to do so is simply being autocratic.

Anwar wants the Opposition to follow his example of asking his predecessor Ismail Sabri Yaakob for allocations for PH and PH-allied MPs. That was possible because he had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Sabri to support the government. The Opposition — no longer a threat to the government — gave Sabri no reason not to comply. Although it was a successful bid, however, it wasn’t democratic because some MPs did not get the allocations.

MP allocations should not be used as leverage to get MPs to conform. It is taxpayers’ money that is the MPs’ right to have to serve their constituents and prime ministers have no right to withhold it and give it to whoever and whenever they wish.

Anwar could have broken away from the practice of the past and easily introduced a law or amendments to ensure that all allocations are equally given to all MPs. There is no justifiable reason why Anwar has failed to introduce such a law when it is in his power to do so.

The prime minister has not understood that his lack of action on this issue will backfire on him and the party that will suffer most from it will be his own, PKR. If an equal MP allocation law is not initiated now, when PH is no longer in government — that might happen sooner than expected — it is Anwar’s own party, PKR, which, as the Opposition, will suffer most without allocations.

PH partner DAP can raise private funds and could survive without MP allocations. Amanah, its other partner, if it can not survive has the option to join another coalition. But, what will become of PKR? Anwar has to think of his own party as well.

Syed Saddiq alluded to this when he raised the issue of MP allocations but all the queries are falling on deaf ears because MPs are not holding the prime minister to democratic principles and the federal constitution.

It is time that MPs started doing their homework on what the federal constitution states regarding the issues brought up in the Dewan Rakyat and argue and seek clarifications based on it.

Even with regard to Deputy Prime Minister and Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s dismissal not amounting to a dismissal (DNAA), the questions regarding the PM’s role was restricted to the conversation he had with former Attorney-General Idrus Harun who had sought for Zahid’s DNAA.

Questions should have been asked about the reasons for extending the tenure of the AG and the constitutional basis for the decision. MPs should have a sense of what issues would be raised and seek clarification based on the constitution and principles of parliamentary democracy.

Even with regard to the sensitive issues of race, religion and royalty, the prime minister can be queried for the constitutional basis of his decisions. Constitutionally, MPs can not question the royals of their decisions and conduct. There is no need to. But MPs owe it to the people to question the prime minister of any decision or issue pertaining to royalty with regard to the running of the government.

If MPs know what the constitution says on the issues of race, religion and royalty, it would give them the confidence to query the PM with regard to these issues and hold him to abide by the rules of parliamentary democracy and the federal constitution.

The people are not interested in whatever personal explanations or bureaspeak the government spews. The people want to know if the government is operating within the confines of the law, the federal constitution and the principles of parliamentary democracy that we practise. Only MPs who know and understand democratic principles will have the courage to raise such issues and ground the debate according to the constitution. It will expose the abuse of power and poor governance.

Syed Saddiq, the lone people’s representative from Muda in the Dewan Rakyat, is doing his job but he needs more to join him. There should be more Muda representatives in Parliament and the state governments to fight on behalf of the people.

That can happen only if Muda proves to be a well-set-up grassroots-based organization. That’s the first thing Muda should do: Go town to town, city to city, and sign up members. When they have enough, hold party elections so that every person holding office in Muda is elected. It can then participate in a state or federal election knowing that it has a grassroots base that can be mobilised to get more voters.

If Muda gets itself more organised from the grassroots upwards, it can enter elections confidently and expect better results.

PN needs to be more Malaysian Malay

Uncategorized, ,

The Pulai parliamentary seat and Simpang Jeram state seat elections were won by Amanah, a partner in the incumbent coalition unity government. However, it must be noted that the Perikatan Nasional (PN) candidates in both by-elections won over a significant number of voters, more than in the 15th General Election (GE15) last November.

Suhaizan Kaiyat won the Pulai parliamentary constituency with 48,283 votes and an 18,641 majority compared to his predecessor former Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Minister Datuk Seri Salahuddin Ayub, also from Amanah, who had won the seat in GE15 with 64,900 votes and a 33,174 majority. The Pulai by-election was called after Salahuddin’s death on July 23.

The PN candidate, Zulkifli Jaafar, gained 29,642 votes compared to the PN GE15 candidate who got 20,677 votes.

In the Simpang Jeram state election, the Amanah candidate, Nazri Abdul Rahman, won with 13,844 votes compared to the PN candidate Dr Mohd Mazri Yahya’s 10,330 votes. In GE15, the PN candidate won 6,350 votes.

In both these two by-elections, although the PN candidates lost, they gained more votes than in GE15. But voter turnout was low which means there was a whole lot of votes out there for the taking that PN did not reach.

It is clear that the PN strategy that worked up north successfully did not work fully in Johor. By now PN should realise that a different strategy is needed to appeal to the more urban voters south of Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu. It must also realise that in this large swathe of land, relying on the Malay votes will be insufficient to get a majority to form a government. PN also needs the non-Malay vote.

Telling voters that it is haram (forbidden) to vote for a candidate of Pakatan Harapan (PH) of which Amanah is a member and focussing on the Malay first strategy will turn off more urban voters — Malays included — than attract them.

In the subsequent elections, PN needs to find suitable candidates who can connect with the voter base in the urban areas. They should keep away from religious issues and discuss them in other forums like the mosques unless it involves the whole or a significant segment of society.

Since PH has abandoned the reform agenda, PN should pick up the slack and aggressively capitalize on reform-worthy issues and be determined to deliver once elected to office. PN candidates must show that he/she can handle urban issues with more open-mindedness.

Once, PN learns to connect with the urban voter base, it will appear more attractive to the whole bunch of voters out there disenchanted with the status quo — non-Malays included — and it can not but win elections.

If PN does not fill the vacuum in the urban areas for a responsible, credible, constitution-upholding and others-sensitive alternative choice, it will only make a dent in the PH strongholds in Selangor, Negri Sembilan (supported by a strong Umno presence) and Penang and Umno-led governments in Perak, Pahang, Malacca and Johor.

To win PN must become less parochial Malay and more open-minded Malaysian Malay and confidently inclusive while remaining true to its own struggles.

PM can’t wash his hands of Zahid’s DNAA

Uncategorized, , ,

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim can not disclaim responsibility for deputy prime minister and Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s dismissal not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) because it was Anwar himself who extended Attorney-General (AG) Idrus Harun’s tenure by six months.

Two months after Anwar became prime minister, Idrus’ contract expired. In the year before his contract expired Idrus became a controversial AG because many Umno leaders who were charged in court by the previous AG, Tommy Thomas, were acquitted or had their cases withdrawn on the orders of the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) or were given a DNAA.

Anwar was fully aware of Idrus’ record and described the latter’s performance as “satisfactory” when he was asked why he had extended Idrus’ contract by another six months. In other words, Anwar was fully aware of the implications of his decision and Idrus delivered — up to expectations.

This firestorm of protest should have happened when Idrus’s contract was extended not now when the damage is done and it is too late.

A nagging question is why an AG considered letters of representation by the defence counsels. Shouldn’t the AGC get its facts and evidence from its own prosecution teams and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC)?

New AG Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh, however, emphasised that the AGC has a duty to give due consideration to letters of representation by accused persons, in conjunction with feedback from investigating authorities.

If so, then, perhaps, Idrus should have done what Terrirudin did yesterday by stopping court proceedings until the prosecution team could work on the new information and come up with a solid case.

Since a precedent has now been set, would it then follow that any accused person feeling unfairly charged can send letters of representation to the AG to review the case? This is absurd. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Hopefully, Terrirudin will draw out a clear protocol with regard to letters of representation so that defence counsels do not abuse this avenue.

Withdrawing the case or seeking a DNAA for particularly Umno politicians charged by Thomas now casts doubts on whether there was a basis for these charges. Thomas could have recognized criminal activity by the errant politicians and may have had the confidence, insight and ability to prove it which some others like Idrus might not have, in which case, a second professional opinion might have been needed.

A more important question is whether the escape of conviction by Umno politicians facing criminal charges in court during Idrus’ tenure as AG is according to the mandate of the people.

Thomas had the support of former second-time prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who got the mandate of the people to take corrupt politicians to court.

Idrus got the support of former prime minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob and current PM Anwar both of whom did not get the mandate of the people to spare Umno leaders facing criminal charges in court but who, nevertheless, used their positions to create advantageous situations for Umno such as keeping someone like Idrus as AG and including that party in the unity government.

Was this what the people wanted when they voted for Anwar in the last general election last November? Was Anwar mandated by the people to let Umno politicians who faced corruption charges go free? If not, why is this happening? If not the people’s, whose mandate is Anwar executing? That is the important question to address.

Anwar likes to present a public face of the innocent victim who has become the prime minister. In defending Idrus against the criticisms over Zahid’s DNAA, he said, ” I fault the backlash to the ‘system’ inherited over the last few decades, where politicians are seen as ‘greedy, cruel’ beings who victimised the people … I underwent the process. Now that I’m the prime minister, I’m not willing to use it against anyone else.”

Yet, he sent former prime minister and Bersatu president Muhyiddin Yassin and other opposition members to court on corruption charges. Yet, under his leadership Umno leaders facing court charges escaped conviction. How is he not doing the same things he accuses previous prime ministers of? His actions speak louder than his words.

Lest people forget, it must be mentioned here that in 1998 when Anwar was sacked from the government as deputy prime minister and as Umno deputy president, it wasn’t because he went against then-prime minister Mahathir. That is what he wants everyone to believe: that Mahathir was a dictator and Anwar was a threat to the former who removed him from office.

There may be some truth in that. If Anwar thought that Mahathir needed to be toppled and replaced, that is a legitimate reason. But, did he do it democratically? If he felt that he deserved to replace Mahathir as PM, why didn’t he go to the ground, rallied for grassroots support and stood for election against Mahathir in Umno? He didn’t do that.

Instead, he formed a pact with the then-opposition party, the DAP (that explains why PKR and DAP are thick as thieves!) and it is said that he got the help of the United States as well and was scheming behind Mahathir’s back to topple him. Mahathir heard about it and preempted it by sacking him from the government and the party.

Exposed, Anwar took to the streets, attracting thousands and destabilised peace and order. Again, Mahathir acted decisively and charged him with sodomy cases which he lost and went to jail. There was nothing politically charged about these moves; the incumbent PM dealt with a revolting former deputy prime minister who apparently had the backing of the US and who was acting in a way that threatened the peace and order of that time.

If Anwar had acted democratically and stood for elections and won, he would have become PM two decades ago. If he had lost the elections, he should have just stayed quiet like former deputy prime minister Musa Hitam and Umno supreme council member Tengku Razaleigh who had also contested against Mahathir and lost.

But Anwar did not follow the democratic route at that time and created a ruckus wherever he went and, frankly, simply got what he asked for. So, he has no reason to play the victim card; he is just using it to beg for sympathy and understanding and make Mahathir look like the villain.

Anwar then formed a political party but the premiership eluded him until the 15th general election in November last year when he became PM on the direction of the king and an undemocratic Memorandum of Understanding — without the mandate of the people. Since then he has been doing everything he can to stay in power, and, somehow Umno features significantly in his agenda even though the Malay voters are steadily abandoning Umno.

Anwar’s Pakatan Harapan (PH)-led unity government has 118 seats without the Umno-led Barisan Nasional’s (BN) 30 seats — enough to form a simple but stable majority government. With BN, Anwar has a two-thirds majority which is yet to be used to introduce meaningful new legislation.

Giving a two-thirds majority to a government without the mandate of the people is putting the people at risk of policies and changes that will affect them directly. The federal constitution can be changed but to benefit whom?

The current king’s term is coming to an end soon and if Anwar wants a king he can work in partnership with there may be a need to amend the constitution to remove the clause that restricts the constitutional monarch to act on the advice of the prime minister.

With a two-thirds majority, the Dewan Rakyat could remove the clause’ “… act on the advice of the prime minister …” thus giving the constitutional monarch more say in the affairs of government.

This is just an example and may not happen but it could and if it does that would be the end of parliamentary democracy and we may have a situation like in Johor when the Menteri Besar who got the mandate of the people was set aside by the Sultan who chose the Menteri Besar he wanted.

A government without the mandate of the people may act not necessarily for the benefit of the people. Another example is the RM95 billion New Industrial Master Plan launched last week to transform the industrial sector by 2030. Its approach is expected to be more liberal and that might affect the equity requirements nurtured over the years to distribute wealth equitably among the people.

The NIMP may be an attempt to attract foreign investment but if it sacrifices equity requirements that might not be the best policy in the interests of the people.

Political parties in a government without the mandate of the people need to think twice about who or what they are enabling and act proactively. They should not wait until the unthinkable happens because it would be too late then to correct the situation.

Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) and Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS) need to realise that what is happening in Peninsular Malaysia could happen in Sabah and Sarawak as well and they should not be a party to an undemocratic precedent.

Look how Zahid got off the hook, and there was nothing anybody could do about it.

Let’s learn from our neighbours

Uncategorized, ,

Malaysian Members of Parliament should take a good look at how their immediate neighbours handle political crises. Up in the north, Thailand finally resolved its leadership problem after three months of intense negotiations and chose a prime minister by vote.

Thai MPs risked political chaos for three months for the sake of following the democratic process of electing their prime minister. They understood what our MPs don’t seem to understand: A government led by a prime minister who is not democratically elected will always be unstable.

Thai MPs chose a period of uncertainty in order to install a democratically-elected government that could provide a longer period of stability.

There were gains and losses but they respected the final outcome when put to the vote. In the process, the progressive Move Forward Party which won the general election held on May 14 lost the right to form a government. The party’s leader and prime ministerial candidate Pita Limjaroenrat was voted out by pro-military MPs.

In conceding defeat, Pita also gave his party’s backing to the Pheu Thai Party, which came second in the general election, and so took the turn to form the government. After much negotiations, the party proposed a hitherto unknown party member, Srettha Thavisin, as the prime ministerial candidate, in the next vote. Srettha won with the support of the pro-military bloc.

Three months is, indeed, a long time to resolve the choice of a democratically-elected prime minister but it was a risk the Thais took in order to ensure that the democratic processes were followed, and it proved a success. No one can now argue about the constitutional legitimacy of Srettha’s government. Hopefully, next time though they will take a much shorter time to elect a prime minister!

The Thai MPs, however, should be lauded for their confidence in navigating the chaos in Parliament by themselves without external interference. The chaos was confined in Parliament and did not spill over to the rest of the country and the Thais must be commended for managing that period of uncertainty without putting the country at risk.

While their MPs did their job, the Thai king stayed out of the political fray and only endorsed the prime minister after Srettha was elected by the MPs.

In Malaysia, when faced with a hung Parliament, MPs failed to show the confidence the Thai MPs demonstrated; the former did not take the risk of momentary chaos for the greater benefit of the future stability of a democratically-elected government. They chose political expediency over constitutional legitimacy, and meekly followed the direction of the constitutional monarch and formed a government with the help of a Memorandum of Understanding without negotiating with major coalitions to form a majority government.

Now, we have a unity government with a two-thirds majority but which excludes representation by the major race in the country.

Perhaps, the irony of it has not been missed by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and that may be the reason why he has bent over backwards to give incentives to the Malays in and out of government before the just concluded state elections to win over their support but it was too late.

He should have thought of including the majority Malay representation before and not after he became prime minister. The state elections results clearly show that no amount of concessions to the Malays will win them over to support the Anwar-led government. Their choice is Perikatan Nasional (PN).

This is the reality that Anwar must accept: The majority of the Malays did not choose him to be the prime minister and he needs to act accordingly for the stability of the country.

Down south, in Singapore, Transport Minister S Iswaran who was arrested on corruption charges is now on bail and placed on a leave of absence until the disposal of his case. Two other MPs, former Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin and Cheng Li Hui resigned from parliament and the People’s Action Party (PAP) for having an extramarital affair.

In Malaysia, the prime minister and the deputy prime minister are both facing court charges but they stood for election, won and accepted the top two jobs in the country. Anwar has set a precedent that even PN politicians are following!

Kedah now has a menteri besar who is also facing court charges. Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor is from the Islamic party PAS, a PN member. Why an Islamic party that touts itself as a clean party unlike its rivals Umno and PKR (members of Anwar’s unity government) would make a party member facing charges in court the Menteri Besar defies logic.

Internationally, Malaysia’s image may be marred especially when compared to the neighbouring nations whose leaders are striving to hold themselves to a higher standard of performance and public conduct.

Malaysian MPs and politicians should likewise do the same and set a higher bar of public conduct and performance for themselves.

PN got its majority, your turn, Mr PM, to prove yours

Uncategorized, , ,

Perikatan Nasional (PN) has sent a strident message still ringing throughout the country that by winning 73% of the Malay vote in the just-concluded state elections, it has taken over from Umno the right to represent the Malays and form a government, which, in effect, is a notice given to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim that the days of his government are numbered.

The fact that PN won 146 of the 245 seats contested in the state elections held in Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah, Penang, Selangor and Negeri Sembilan while Pakatan Harapan (PH) won 99 does not mean that Anwar’s unity government will fall. The federal government remains but PN has proven it has the majority support of the majority race and is in the position to take the lead to form a new government.

Anwar can wait for that to happen and prolong political uncertainty or act decisively now to preempt it. In any democracy, when doubts are cast on the support of the majority for the prime minister (PM), responsible PMs turn to the vote to test their majority (Consider all the examples in Australia, United Kingdom and Canada, to name only the developed democracies). That is the democratic way of resolving the issue of a majority or a lack of it.

Anwar’s supporters have been churning out page after page of suggestions of what he must do to save his administration. They have suggested a Cabinet reshuffle to include more Malay ministers, emphasised the development of the economy, urged reaching out to PN president and former prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin to join the unity government, and encouraged giving more incentives to the Malays etc, etc. Yet, none — not even the MPs — have recommended following the democratic process.

This is simply a shocking lack of knowledge of the democratic principles upon which our parliamentary democracy is built according to the federal constitution and relying on those principles to find a solution. Any other way, while having its merits, is simply not democratic and, therefore, unconstitutional.

PN did not take to the streets to demand the right to govern. Its candidates calmly went down to the people through the democratic processes and won their majority support. By doing so, they have thrown the challenge to Anwar to prove his majority.

Now, it’s Anwar’s turn to prove his supermajority not in anyhow way as if this is a cowboy country without law and order where everyone does as he or she deems fit, but by democratic means. He must prove that his supermajority is an accurate reflection of the majority on the ground. Anwar needs to know what he apparently has yet to learn — that a prime minister is only as strong as his grassroots support, which is his responsibility to prove he has.

There are two ways a prime minister can prove his majority: Call for snap elections or a confidence vote in Parliament.

Calling for a snap election is not a suitable option now as a general election was concluded just about nine months ago. Calling for a confidence vote is the better and sole alternative left.

There are two possible ways to call for a confidence vote. Anwar calls for one or, even better, since he now has a supermajority, he introduces a law to amend the standing orders so that if a minimum number of MPs (the number can be fixed by the MPs after a debate) call for a confidence vote, it gets priority over all government matters, or he introduces a law to enable MPs to call for a confidence vote which must be carried out.

Once the law is passed, Anwar waits to see if MPs will call for a confidence vote. But, whether he calls for a confidence vote or the MPs call for one, he has to annul the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) he signed with all the parties who joined his unity government so that MPs vote freely, as representatives of their constituents and without compulsion.

If Anwar wins the confidence vote, he remains as prime minister of the unity government. If he loses, it is clear proof that he does not have the majority support of the MPs and he must facilitate a change of government. Either outcome will ensure that the issue of who has a majority is settled and political stability is restored.

A confidence vote is the only democratic option available now for Anwar to resolve the issue of a majority.

The question is whether Anwar will seek the democratic route to find a resolution or fall back to alliances and the backing of the king and other powerful forces to maintain the status quo and remain as prime minister?

If he chooses the democratic solution, he will restore political stability whether or not the status quo remains. If he does not, he should not be surprised if in a matter of time the status quo changes.

Tomorrow, vote with the majority for a majority

Uncategorized, , ,

Malaysian voters generally vote along race and religion lines and in the state elections tomorrow that might work for Perikatan Nasional (PN) to return to govern the states of Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah and for PH to retain Penang under a DAP government.

In Selangor and Negeri Sembilan, however, the voting trends are not so clear-cut. There may be a shift in voting patterns as PN has apparently made inroads in Selangor and voters disgruntled with PH may vote against the latter.

Today, just one day left before casting the ballot tomorrow, there may be a further slide in support for PH — especially from Indian voters — after Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s treatment of the student who had asked him about the bumiputra quota at a session at Kolej Matrikulasi Pulau Pinang in Kepala Batas last week.

It should be an eye-opener to non-Malays of the treatment we will get as Anwar uses the advantage of incumbency to go all out to win Malay support.

This, together with the latest action by the Home Ministry to ban Swatch watches and related materials reflecting LGBT influences will surely result in a further loss of votes for PH.

In both of the above cases, PH may have taken the risk to lose some non-Malay votes in exchange for Malay votes. Whether this would be translated to a win by PH will only be known tomorrow. What is sure, today, however, is that the status quo in favour of PH is not guaranteed in Selangor and Negeri Sembilan.

A change in the status quo may result in a hung assembly and that is a likelihood that must be avoided at all costs as it raises the possibility of interference by vested interests — if assemblypersons do not conduct themselves according to the state and federal constitutions.

In the event of a hung assembly, elected representatives have to negotiate a way to form a majority government before presenting themselves to the Sultan whose role in installing a government as defined in the constitution is respected and defended.

The people do not want a repeat of Anwar’s manner of handling a hung government after the 15th general election (GE15) when he failed to convince other parties to join him and a unity government was formed on the instruction of the king with Anwar as PM but which excluded representation from the majority race, the Malays. This happened because Anwar failed to advise the king on the constitutional way of resolving a hung Parliament.

An unconstitutional government must not be formed even at the state level. It would, if no side gets a stable majority, and panicking assemblypersons unconstitutionally seek or facilitate the Sultan’s intervention and, in the process, rob the people of the mandate they entrusted in the hands of their elected representatives. In other words, the government will be compromised in holding itself accountable to the people.

That is the underlying issue at stake in these six state elections — not Malay rights versus non-Malay rights, although they are relevant, but protecting and defending the people’s right to self-determination according to the principles of parliamentary democracy that we practise and which was compromised at the federal level after GE15.

If Anwar did not ensure the uncompromised practice of parliamentary democracy at the federal level there is no certainty that he would practice it at the state level. He may, but it is a risk that the people of Selangor and Negeri Sembilan must not take if we want a democratically-elected majority that is accountable to the people and not to any vested interests.

Only a majority government can ensure that a government of and by the people remains as such.

That is the reason why in these state elections, the voters in Selangor and Negeri Sembilan, must vote with the majority.

In the current context, the coalition that can attain a majority without excluding the majority race, the Malays, is PN. Malay support for PH is questionable and until proven otherwise, PH will be unable to form a Malay-based majority. So, voting for PH is a route to a very possible hung assembly which we must avoid at all costs — if we want to maintain the democratic principle of accountability to the people and keep vested interests out of influencing the affairs of government.

The Malays are with PN. In these state elections, for the sake of protecting our parliamentary democracy, the non-Malays should join forces with the Malays and vote for PN so that PN also undertakes responsibility for our rights. If we don’t, we may not be represented in government.

Non-Malays may hold back from voting for PN because of PAS which is a partner in PN. PAS fielded candidates in Malay-majority seats and voters can counter PAS’ wins by voting for Muda and PSM (Parti Sosialis Malaysia) in your constituencies. Whether in government or in the opposition, Muda and PSM will be the moderating influence on PAS’ fundamental extremism.

Consider what is at stake in these six state elections — the uncompromising practice of parliamentary democracy. If the majority wins in these state elections, it is a clear signal that the people are claiming back our right to self-rule and that we won’t tolerate any government that is not accountable to the people.

Tomorrow, fellow Malaysians, let us vote as Malaysians, not as Malays, Chinese, Indians or others. Let’s vote together with the Malays and install a majority-led government in Selangor and Negeri Sembilan and ensure the sovereignty of the rule by and of the people.

Normalising corruption, yes, no?

Uncategorized, , ,

If a prime minister will not censure his deputy for telling recipients of government allocations to vote for his and the prime minister’s coalitions, what are the people to conclude except that it is what Muda president Syed Saddiq Abdul Rahman says it is: normalising corruption.

What was Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s response to criticisms of Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi who — after giving an allocation of RM250,000 to the Terengganu Youth Council and RM200,000 to motorcycle teams throughout Terengganu — told the recipients there would be more aid if they voted for the blue (Barisan Nasional (BN)) and red (Pakatan Harapan (PH) wave?

He said it was not related to the state elections. Anwar is right, the allocations by itself may be unrelated to the state elections but he chose to ignore the fact that Zahid actually said “vote for the blue and red wave” after giving the allocations. Isn’t that a blatant and brazen, and very public invitation to vote for his side immediately after giving aid?

Zahid uttered the words but the prime minister failed to address it and by omitting this fact that is on public record, he dismissed the issue as a non-issue. By skewing the truth by omission, Anwar, has justified keeping an ally in government.

To make matters worse Anwar as PKR president has nominated a convict to stand for election in the state seat of Permatang in Selangor. Mohd Yahya Mat Sahri who was former Selangor menteri besar Khalid Ibrahim’s special officer, was jailed for two years in 2016 for cheating a businessman over a RM50,000 donation to sponsor an event.

Doesn’t PKR know what the federal constitution says about convicted politicians?

Article 48(1)(e) provides: 48(1) Subject to the provisions of this Article, a person is disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament if –

(e) he has been convicted of an offence by a court of law in the federation… and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or to a fine of not less than two thousand ringgit and has not received a free pardon; or

(3) The disqualification of a person under paragraph….(e) may be removed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong…”.

Yahya was jailed for two years. How could he be nominated to stand for election? It can be argued that Article 48(1) is relevant only to either House of Parliament and does not apply to the state elections.

That’s a convenient cop-out, isn’t it? Shouldn’t the same principle of proper conduct acceptable in Parliament be acceptable for state politicians as well? What logic is it that the standard of conduct for parliamentarians does not apply to assemblypersons?

Surely PKR has qualified non-convicts to stand for election? They can’t be so desperate that they have no choice but to nominate a convict?

In addition, Lim Guan Eng, chairman of DAP, which is a partner in Anwar’s PH-BN unity government, and who is facing an ongoing corruption case in court, is standing for election in the state seat of Air Puteh in Penang.

Lim with Anwar, Zahid and Syed Saddiq, who are all facing ongoing court cases, stood for election in GE15 and won. They shouldn’t have, but they did and we can dismiss it as a first offence of a lapse in judgement. But, to repeat a mistake is no longer an error in judgement but a demonstration of a simply very low common denominator of public conduct totally inconsistent with the standard of integrity advocated by Anwar’s madani government in which they represent.

What else is mind-boggling is that the Election Commission accepted the nomination papers of these candidates! In Air Putih and Permatang, the people should vote to reject these candidates and make it clear to politicians that they will not tolerate compromised candidates.

It is a great relief that Syed Saddiq did not offer himself for a state seat! Hopefully, his corruption case will be disposed of well before the next general election so that he can stand for election confidently on a clean slate.

All these politicians, including all others facing court charges should not stand for public office until their cases are disposed of. These cases should be expedited so that the issues are resolved and the public is not left wondering whatever happened to them.

As to whether these court cases — including the new case taken against Anwar after he received a royal pardon for his previous sodomy case — will ever see the light of day under Anwar’s madani government is another omission that has left the public in the dark and which the prime minister makes no effort to address.

If Anwar keeps omitting pertinent facts regarding issues of public significance, he will be nurturing a culture that promotes a lack of transparency in government.

The PJD link is a case in point. Residents affected by the PJD link project took the Selangor government to court to get it to release the project documents which the state government claimed came under the Official Secrets Act.

After the Selangor Assembly was dissolved to pave the way for state elections, caretaker menteri besar Amirudin Shari cancelled the project. Then, he said the project could be revived if certain requirements are met.

The residents have given him a one-week notice to state the requirements, otherwise, they intend to continue with their lawsuit to get access to the documents.

Why is a state government not releasing information that the residents want to know about a project that would disrupt their life? It is the same lack of transparency the federal government exhibits in some of its decisions.

If all this isn’t normalising corruption and encouraging a lack of transparency, what then is it?

In the state elections on Aug 12, the people have a choice to maintain the status quo or elect leaders who will hold themselves to the highest standard of public conduct and honour the trust of the people to uphold their interests. So, think before voting so that we don’t regret after, because it may be too late then.