Will the MPs act?

Uncategorized, ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The people need answers; MPs must ensure it

Uncategorized, , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Deepavalli, folks!

Uncategorized,

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

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

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

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

Happy Deepavalli, all!

The MoU: A tool to remove checks and balances?

Uncategorized, ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Merdeka wish …

Uncategorized,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s my Merdeka wish.

Lessons from the Nenggiri by-election

Uncategorized, ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bersatu is the threat to Umno, so buck up

Uncategorized, ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take the fight to Parliament, not the police

Uncategorized, ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Speaker’s word has consequences

Uncategorized, , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Langkah Muar is worth emulating

Uncategorized, , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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