What the Turun Anwar rally means

Uncategorized, ,

Tonight (July 26), a mammoth “Turun Anwar” rally is being planned to call for the resignation of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. Organised by the Opposition, Perikatan Nasional (PN), the rally is expected to attract thousands.

PN component partner Bersatu’s deputy president Hamzah Zainuddin claimed in Parliament that he expects about 500,000 people to attend the rally at Dataran Merdeka. If such a figure did turn up at the rally, Anwar will be faced with the daunting prospect of recognising the will of the people and stepping down or defying the people and staying on as PM.

PN may be confident of a large turnout based on feedback from the ground. Realistically, however, that figure may be hoped for rather than expected. If 500,000 people do turn up at the rally, it would be a very clear indication of the discontent on the ground and it would do well for Anwar to heed what the people want.

Even if the turnout was less than expected, even if it is only 10,000 or even less, Anwar has to take note of it seriously. A smaller crowd does not mean that the discontent is limited. It could mean the tip of the iceberg and Anwar should not wait until the submerged iceberg of discontent swells up and sweeps over!

Nevertheless, Anwar has dismissed the rally, saying that it doesn’t mean anything as his administration is intact. He has also said that he would not step down unless he loses a confidence vote in the Dewan Rakyat. It was reported in the media that he has instructed the Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat to agree to a confidence or no-confidence vote should the MPs call for one.

A confidence/no-confidence vote in the Dewan Rakyat is the conventional means of removing a prime minister from office. In the current political scenario, however, even if the Speaker allows for one, the government MPs will not be free to vote according to their conscience and the outcome would likely favour the incumbent PM, for just one reason. The political parties which joined Anwar’s Pakatan Harapan (PH) coalition to form a majority government are bound by a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) where they promise to support him for a full term. In exchange they got benefits.

So, Anwar’s deceptive confidence is understandable. The MoU will ensure he wins a confidence/no-confidence vote so he can appear magnanimous in inviting MPs to call for one knowing he will pass the test.

That direction to the Speaker to accommodate a call for a confidence/no-confidence vote, however, reveals the PM’s lack of interest in resolving the issue of a hung Parliament or the need to prove a PM’s majority support in the House. It amounts to executive interference. His direction indicates that the Speaker is not independent.

As a PM who claims to be a reformist, Anwar would have proven his word true if the first thing he had done after being appointed PM was to implement a process by law to call for a confidence/no-confidence vote to solve the urgent issue of a hung Parliament and in choosing a PM with the majority support of the Dewan Rakyat.

With a two-thirds majority, albeit by an undemocratic MoU, he could have easily done it. The fact that he didn’t simply shows that he himself wasn’t confident of his purported majority support of the MPs.

Now, if the PM is sincere, he would cancel the MoU, free the MPs to vote as they wish, set in place the proper process to call for confidence/no-confidence vote and leave it to the MPs to decide what to do.

Since he hasn’t done that and if today’s rally draws thousands, Anwar has to consider their request and resign. If he fails to do that, the Opposition now has very strong grounds to lobby government MPs to support a call for a confidence/no-confidence vote on the grounds that a large segment of the people have no confidence in him.

MPs who understand the democratic principle of accountability will support PN unless they want to lose their voters. It is not worth risking that.

Today’s rally will have a bearing on Anwar’s future as PM.

A path back to rule by the mandate of the majority

Uncategorized, ,

Of late, there has been an increase in criticisms against Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, including calls for him to resign or take a leave of absence. Anwar’s premiership has been marked by criticisms from Day 1, but these calls amidst the criticisms have become more frequent, especially after a couple of events that paint the PM in a very poor light.

The first involved Anwar seeking a ruling by the High Court to refer to the Federal Court to determine legal questions as to whether a PM has immunity against civil suits. It may appear as a legitimate query by a PM, except for the fact that it was a sitting PM with a sexual assault case pending against him in court who was seeking such immunity.

Few bought his argument that his action was an attempt to protect the institution of the Prime Minister’s Office. Most saw through his guise.

Early this month, the High Court dismissed his attempt as “baseless claims” but Anwar is appealing.

This was followed by another court decision involving his former aide, Yusoff Rawther, who had taken the sexual assault case against Anwar. While the case was pending, Yusoff was slapped with charges of drug trafficking and possessions of two imitation pistols and held in remand for nine months but was acquitted of both charges by the High Court on June 12, suggesting they were trumped-up charges.

Soon after that, the news leaked out that a senior judge was reported to have been questioned by the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) for allegedly being involved in judicial interference. The Bar Council announced on Wednesday that it was seeking High Court orders to get the minutes of the JAC meeting in May to ascertain the allegations of judicial interference.

The response to these actions has been intense. Online criticisms are heavily slanted against Anwar, with many calling for his resignation and expressing their sense of betrayal that his promised reforms were not delivered. Opposition leaders have repeatedly urged caution over these issues involving alleged abuse of power.

Two days ago, two-time former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad lent weight to the issue of judicial interference by holding a roundtable discussion by the Secretariat to Defend the Judicial System which called on Anwar to declare that he has a conflict of interest and to recuse himself from the process of appointing senior judges.

The secretariat proposed that Anwar take a leave of absence until Yusuff’s lawsuit against him was resolved.

Another event that seriously damaged Anwar’s image as a reformer with popular support was when about 100 Universiti Malaysia Sabah students held an anti-corruption rally in Kota Kinabalu on Sunday at which they burned Anwar’s caricature. The students held the rally to protest against the lack of action taken against corruption in Sabah.

In a thriving democracy, a beleaguered PM whose decisions are constantly criticised would either resign or seek a confidence vote to test his support. Or, fellow MPs will call for a confidence vote.

In Malaysia, there is no provision by law to call for a confidence vote unless the PM calls for it. There are also no procedures to follow in the event of a hung Parliament to find a PM with the support of the majority of the Dewan Rakyat. To complicate matters, the partners and allies in the current administration are bound by an MoU to keep Anwar for a full term.

But if Anwar loses the case to Yusoff, he has no choice but to resign, irrespective of the MoU. But then he leaves the premiership with his reputation gone. It would be better for Anwar to resign now and not be under pressure to use his position to find some means to stay in power for a full term.

For now, there is one way for Anwar and his government to resign and seek the mandate of the people to govern. The people who put him in power in the first place should ask him to. These are the previous king, Pakatan Harapan partners DAP and Amanah and allies Sabah’s GRS and Sarawak’s GPS.

Meanwhile, the Opposition, Perikatan Nasional (PN), should start lobbying for majority support so that a legitimate government with proof of majority support will be ready to take over the government and govern according to the mandate of the people.

This should be done for the sake of the nation and to reestablish our tradition of forming a government on the mandate of the majority.

Rafizi-Nurul contest, a lesson to be learnt

Uncategorized, ,

It was officially announced late yesterday that Rafizi Ramli lost his bid to defend his position as the deputy president of PKR to Nurul Izzah, daughter of party president and prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim.

It was a foregone conclusion that Nurul would win considering the fact that 201 out of 220 divisions had declared their support for her. While divisions are free to nominate whoever they want in democratic elections, this contest is worth examining to see if it was fairly conducted.

First and foremost, why was there a contest for the deputy president’s position when Anwar had publicly declared that the party had declared that the top two positions would be left uncontested?

The explanation given by Nurul in a Facebook posting at the end of her campaign last night was that Rafizi had resigned from the Cabinet due to the poor showing of his team in the divisional elections and that her supporters then approached her to contest the deputy president’s post as they were concerned over a “potential leadership vacuum”.

In his defence, Rafizi had explained that he did not resign but had applied for leave.

This is what raised concerns over this contest. Even if Rafizi had resigned from the Cabinet, it does not mean that he automatically steps down from his party position. He remains as party deputy president unless he has declared that he would not be defending his position. But with Anwar’s announcement that the top two positions would not be contested, he abided by the status quo.

So, why did Nurul’s supporters still nominate her for the deputy president’s post? Very clearly, it had nothing to do with concern for a “potential leadership vacuum”! Apparently, as Rafizi had said, there was a move to oust him from his position.

Nurul’s supporters used Rafizi’s purported resignation as an opportunity to justify a “potential leadership vacuum” and went against the party position of a no-contest for the top two positions and nominated Nurul.

Both Nurul and her party supporters went against the party position. But what is even more disturbing is that the party president said nothing to advise party members to abide by the party decision. His silence meant tacit approval.

So, not only Nurul and her supporters but the party president himself went against the party decision. If this isn’t openly defying an established order to change the top leadership, then what is it? And was it playing by the rules to be fair?

If there were no party decision for a no-contest for its top positions and Nurul was nominated and won, she would have won fairly. If the party wanted to change its position and open the top two positions for contest, the party should have met and made the decision and announced it; that would have meant the president’s position would also be contested.

So, the party and its president deceptively kept silent while forces rallied to remove Rafizi from his position.

This is the kind of politics that Malaysian politicians play to seize power. They did not follow the rules when Muhyiddin Yassin staged a coup and allowed himself and his Perikatan Nasional government to be appointed in 2020 by the king, how he was forced to resign and Ismail Sabri Yaakob became PM in 2021 without a confidence vote, and how Anwar led his coalition, Pakatan Harapan, to form the next government in 2022, also appointed by the king.

When the political status quo changes, Malaysian politicians close their eyes to some very fundamental aspects of the rule of law when power is within reach and justify seizing it “to save the nation” or “save the party”. This is what makes our politics totally unstable, chaotic and disorderly.

It must be said here, however, that in a way, Rafizi asked for it. He made the biggest mistake a Member of Parliament could make by being aloof from the voter base when he became a minister. In the end, it cost him his party post.

The voters have every right to punish him for keeping his distance from them, but doing it by going against party directives with the seeming tacit approval of the party president smacks of cheating.

The lesson to be learnt here is that in the chaotic mess of Malaysian politics, to maintain integrity and a legitimate claim to power, have the confidence of a strong grassroots support to help withstand the deceptive machinations of politicians who don’t know how to win according to the law or principles.

Pope elected by tradition, what about us?

Uncategorized, ,

The 1.4 billion Catholics in the world have got a new Pope. The papal conclave yesterday elected American Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, who is of South American descent, as the 267th Bishop of Rome (the Bishop of Rome is the Pope) and new leader of the Catholic Church.

Following a nearly 2000-year tradition of papal election, the new Pope Leo XIV was elected with a two-thirds majority. Even a religious organization understood the need for a two-thirds majority from the papal conclave of cardinals to ensure that the new pope has the support of the majority of its worldwide and far-flung members.

It is amazing that this tradition of a democratic election of a pope has survived this long since the apostolic age, after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The papal election process, as we know it, was more clearly defined and began in 1276. Prior to it, popes were chosen by consensus of the clergy and laity (church members).

It is remarkable that the democratic papal election process has continued to this day. While there were adjustments to the process over time, the election of the pope with a supermajority of two-thirds remains an entrenched rule to ensure a swift, stable and smooth transition to a new leadership.

It is an example that everyone — and, especially our own Members of Parliament — who believe in the democratic election of leaders should follow.

The point is not to follow the papal system of election, but to recognize that if we have chosen a system of government, which, in our case, is constitutional democracy, we practise it to ensure it becomes our historical tradition of forming a government.

It is through practise that the tradition is established. Deals made out of expediency only destroy the cultivation of the tradition or convention. Our MPs should practise our parliamentary democracy dictated by the constitution at all costs. MPs should listen to no other suggestion other than what is permitted by the constitution.

When MPs do not conform to the constitution it means, they do not care for the people because the constitution enshrines and protects the rights of the people.

So, if we have MPs who do not follow the constitution, the people must act to make them conform. There is only one way to handle errant MPs. Don’t elect them.

Remembrance weekend for Christians

Uncategorized

Today is Good Friday, a day Christians remember the cost paid for faith and that it does not end with death. Good Friday leads to resurrection day when Jesus Christ rose again three days after his death on the cross to give renewal of life.

It is that rejuvenation of life, following death, that Christians celebrate on resurrection day, which began to be called Easter over the centuries. In pre-Christian times in western civilizations, Easter referred to the goddess of the Saxons, in honour of whom sacrifices were offered about the same time as the Passover, the Jewish festival commemorating the escape from death and to a new life of liberty, free from Egyptian slavery. While the Saxon practice died, the name persisted.

Easter also referred to the “season of the growing sun” or “season of new birth” and was associated with the changing of the seasons.

These practices suggest rebirth, renewal and rejuvenation, which is what the resurrection of Christ makes possible in human reality. Christians eventually reclaimed the name to mean the resurrection of Christ and hence celebrate the latter as Easter.

This is just a brief explanation of why Christians call the resurrection of Christ Easter.

Whatever the term, the weekend begins with remembrance and ends with the celebration of the promise of new life that the resurrection of Christ offers.

To all Christians, happy remembering and have a blessed weekend!

No-contests are undemocratic

Uncategorized, ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selamat Hari Raya!

Uncategorized,

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, Selamat Hari Raya!

What’s wrong with the Parliamentary Service Bill?

Uncategorized,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The people must know what the MPs have done …

Uncategorized, ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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