Tag Archives: Anwar

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.

PM’s silence doesn’t reflect democracy

Uncategorized, ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time for Bersatu to prove it’s a worthy choice

Uncategorized, ,

The way Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim managed or failed to manage the Allah word on socks and heel issues should have given the Opposition, namely Perikatan Nasional (PN), a very good reason to demand for his resignation.

That didn’t happen. Yet, PN’s reaction is not unexpected. PN commendably refrained from taking political mileage from the earlier mentioned two issues and stayed above the fray.

There could be a couple of reasons for PN’s inaction. Firstly, responsibly, it didn’t want to worsen the situation and showed remarkable calm in not agitating its members to react.

Secondly, PN perhaps knows with the Memorandum of Understanding that prevents parties from voting against Anwar, it would be difficult to muster a convincing majority to seek the resignation of the PM.

Getting a convincing majority must become PN’s primary objective. There are two strategies it can employ to achieve this objective. Firstly, PN must demonstrate a strong and fearless leadership in complying with the federal constitution, and, secondly, it must develop strategies to attract the moderate Malays and non-Malays to win by-elections.

PN’s lacklustre performance particularly on constitutional issues in debates in the Dewan Rakyat will give no MP contemplating a switch to another party a convincing reason to join PN because the MP will have no confidence that PN will back him/her on the strength of constitutional correctness.

Even in the debates on an issue very close to the hearts of people as the amendments to the Citizenship bill, PN MPs had little to contribute. The protests came largely from the government bench and from mostly its supporters.

If PN wants to form a government but does not know the federal constitution adequately to know how to defend itself according to the correct interpretations of the federal constitution, it will fail to win the confidence of the people — and the MPs — and, consequently, their support.

PN MPs were also silent in the debate on the amendments to the Police Act 1967, which included a new clause which makes the Yang di-Pertuan Agong the honorary commissioner-in-chief of the Royal Malaysia Police.

The new clause was not touched during the debate on the bill. How can the king be debated? No MP in his/her right mind will debate on the king. The constitution does not allow it. So what was the rationale of the government to introduce a clause for debate when our laws do not allow it?

Such inconsistencies should be immediately pointed out to show the lack of proper understanding of the constitution in the introduction of an amendment that should not have been tabled in the first place. The king is king of all. Why should he be demoted to a position as honorary commissioner-in-chief of the police? The king can’t be debated but the government’s intention can be questioned.

It is very likely that PN MPs kept silent because it involves the king. But MPs need to understand that it is not the king who is being questioned but the government.

When it comes to the king, MPs may not even want to be seen as expressing a negative reaction for fear of losing his support in the event they need to form a government mid-term. That simply reveals the ignorance of the MPs of the federal constitution and their lack of confidence as a result of it.

The federal constitution is explicit: The king appoints the MP who has the support of the majority of the MPs. If they have a majority, MPs must be confident of their constitutional right to form a government. If the king goes against it, the king is acting unconstitutionally and the MPs must know what to do to act constitutionally.

The king’s hand in the appointment of the prime minister can only be an issue if the MPs let him. Knowing that, MPs, and, especially PN MPs, must learn to confidently act constitutionally.

PN’s success so far has been on the back of its component partner PAS’ groundswell of support. PAS’ support comes mostly from the conservative segment of the Malay-Muslim population. It won four states in the north in the 2022 general election.

While it helped PN win more seats, it was unable to help PN form the state governments in Selangor and Negeri Sembilan. According to political analysts the main reason for this is that PAS’ support had plateaued out.

If PN is going to depend on PAS to deliver the votes in the future, PN is going to be disappointed. PN’s other component partner, Bersatu, must build itself up by reaching the less conservative segments of the Malay population and non-Malays. These segments include the urban Malays who may reject PAS as too conservative and outdated.

So, in the coming by-elections, it is imperative that PN fields Bersatu candidates not PAS candidates. This should be tested in the May 11 by-election in Kuala Kubu Baharu (KKB).

With current sentiments for the Pakatan Harapan (PH)-led unity government at an increasingly descending low, a Bersatu candidate who can appeal to both Malay and non-Malay voters will have a high chance of tipping the swing votes in PN’s favour. Voters are increasingly disgruntled with the current administration. They will give their votes to better alternatives.

Now is the time to prove that Bersatu is a worthy choice. If Bersatu wins KKB, it will be a very strong indication that the voters are turning away from PH, which means the party’s success in KKB may be repeated in subsequent by-elections.

Bersatu must show its leadership qualities and be able to appeal to a broader cross-section of voters if it wants to lead a government of the people for the people.

The solution? A confidence vote without the MoU

Uncategorized,

It should surprise no one that the unity government from day one has been faced with the threat of its removal. In fact, it should be welcomed for the simple reason that it is an unconstitutional government because its appointed prime minister has yet to prove he has the support of the majority of the MPs in the Dewan Rakyat as required by the federal constitution.

The MPs know it — except for the constitutionally ignorant ones — and so do all the discerning voters that Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim does not have majority support. Perhaps, he knows it, too, and he may have realised that he had made a mistake when he called for a confidence vote after he made all the political parties involved sign a Memorandum of Understanding that they won’t vote against him as prime minister.

Anwar won that vote with a two-thirds majority because all the MPs whose parties were bound by the MoU had no choice but to vote according to the party. Not allowed to vote freely according to the interests of the voters, because of the MoU, how can that confidence vote legitimise his unity government?

That is the crux of the problem. The point is this issue can be easily resolved. Quash the MoU and call for a confidence vote. That is the constitutional way of legitimising a government when no side has a majority — not the way Anwar went about forming the unity government.

If, indeed, it was a mistake, it can be rectified, as said earlier, without an MoU, and if Anwar himself calls for a motion for a confidence vote.

As it is, under Anwar, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has called previous premiers for questioning on corruption issues. It has also called former finance minister Daim Zainuddin who held office about 40 years ago for questioning also on suspicion of corruption based on the Pandora Papers.

These are serious allegations levelled at these former high-ranking officials. But with what authority is Anwar allowing these investigations when he does not have the mandate of the majority to do so? This can be considered as abuse of power of the highest order because he is acting without majority support and therefore imposing his will on the majority. That is not democratic but dictatorial.

The issue is not whether there was corruption in the dealings of these former public servants but whether Anwar has the right to be PM without majority support and to undertake such actions without the mandate of the people.

He can not hide behind the king for appointing him nor on the MoU for continuing in government as usual. Without a proven majority, he can not claim that he is leading a constitutional government.

The only solution now — even if it is more than one year too late — is to prove the validity of his government. If Anwar has reason to believe he does not have the support of the majority of the MPs — not political parties as it is the MP’s vote that constitutes support not the parties’ word or signing of an MoU — he should call for a confidence vote.

It is not fair of him to ask the Opposition to prove his validity when he knows their motion for a no-confidence vote may be rejected by the Speaker or relegated to the bottom of the businesses of the day and never see the light of day. In addition, because of the MoU, the Opposition knows they may not get the support of the MPs even of those who want a change of government.

Anwar knows all this. So, asking the Opposition to prove his validity is just a ploy because he knows they won’t win.

Anwar needs to show that he is serious about proving that he has the majority support of the Dewan Rakyat. He should prove it without an MoU. He himself has said that the Opposition doesn’t have the support to call for a no-confidence motion. So, he has nothing to fear.

By calling for a confidence vote, the prime minister will settle the issue of the validity of the unity government once and for all. Whether he wins or the Opposition wins, overnight there will be stability because a constitutional government would be formed. All these unceasing moves to topple the government will immediately stop.

If at all such a move is resorted to in the future it will be for very good reasons that MPs or a political party withdraws support. In the immediate future, however, there would be stability and a government will run unobstructed.

I may be sounding like a broken record. But the legitimacy of a government is found in its adherence to the federal constitution in our form of government. A precedent has been set when the process of forming a government when no party or coalition has a majority has been compromised. If it is not corrected now, unscrupulous leaders will use the precedent to justify establishing themselves as a PM and form an unconstitutional government which will be tolerated.

This can not and must not happen again. By paving the way for a confidence vote Anwar will be setting the example of how to prove the validity of a government. A law or an amendment in standing orders to allow for MPs to move a motion for a confidence/no-confidence vote to prove the legitimacy of a government can come later.

For now, Anwar can restore political stability by simply calling for a confidence vote without the MoU. And it should be conducted by ballot not a voice vote so that a majority even by one vote is recorded.

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.

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.

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.

What the voters must consider

Uncategorized, ,

There is only one issue that voters must consider in the upcoming state elections in Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah, Penang, Selangor and Negri Sembilan next month — which parties can form a coalition government that is truly representative of the majority without excluding the minorities?

Although they are state elections, the outcome will be an endorsement or rejection of the federal unity government led by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. These six state elections are extremely significant because it is the only opportunity available to the people now to prove whether Anwar’s government has a majority.

The only other avenue to prove a majority when no party emerges with a majority is a no-confidence vote in Parliament which Anwar faced and won but only because the minority parties had their hands tied by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which demanded that they do not vote against him as prime minister.

Directed by the king and coerced by the MOU, Pakatan Harapan (PH), Gabungan Parti Sarawak, Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS), and a few other smaller parties gave Anwar the majority support of two-thirds of the Members of Parliament (MPs) in Parliament, thus enabling him to become prime minister.

However, these parties that now form Anwar’s unity government do not represent the majority of the people; they represent minority groups. In other words, Anwar’s mandate comes from minorities and those who helped put him in power. Not having the support of the majority, Anwar can not represent the majority and therefore does not have the mandate to govern on behalf of the majority.

That is the point the voters in the state elections must seriously consider. The incumbent Anwar government is an anomaly in democracy as it goes against the fundamental principle of democracy — rule elected by a majority.

The state elections next month will give voters a chance to correct this error. It is very likely that if the same people came out to vote as in the general elections (GE15) last November, the status quo will remain.

But, if those who didn’t vote in GE15 came out in full force the outcome will be different! They will be backed by the increasing number of voters disenchanted by Anwar and jointly it will be the clear voice of the majority!

The voters must realise that from Day 1, Anwar has made decisions that benefitted those who put him in power rather than the majority. He included two candidates who were defeated in parliamentary elections in his Cabinet, namely Minister of Investment, Trade & Industry Tengku Zafrul Aziz and Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution; he supported Umno’s efforts to leave the top two positions uncontested and made Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, who is facing numerous criminal charges in court, as Deputy Prime Minister without a blight of conscience!

The court cases involving Zahid, Muda president Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman and Anwar himself are no longer in the news except for those involving DAP chairman Lim Guan Eng. Is this how a prime minister supports the due process of law?

Anwar has abandoned the reform agenda on which he won support. He has revived the cancelled High-Speed Rail (HSR) project raising questions as to who would benefit from it, the people or already rich individuals and corporations?

No doubt Anwar has signed off Felda’s debts but the initiative to cancel the debts came from Muhyiddin Yassin’s term as prime minister. Is he now seeking credit for it to help his party and allies in the state elections? Or, is this another ploy similar to the actions taken by his predecessors to put cash in the hands of Felda settlers and civil servants to win elections?

And just this week, PAS’ Kedah Menteri Besar Muhammad Sanusi Nor was arrested in the stealth of night at 3am and charged under the Seditions Act for making statements involving the Selangor Sultan.

In all of the above, was Anwar making decisions for himself and the minorities or the majority?

Now, it’s a foregone conclusion that Kedah will go to Perikatan Nasional (PN) of which PAS is a member. Kelantan and Terengganu will also go to PN.

In Penang and, particularly, in Selangor and Negri Sembilan, if the voter turnout especially among the Malays is high, it will make a difference in the outcome of the results.

The voters must know if they want a government that represents the majority or not and vote accordingly.