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.