Tag Archives: MPs

Pope elected by tradition, what about us?

Uncategorized, ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The people must know what the MPs have done …

Uncategorized, ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Happy New Year, folks!

Uncategorized, ,

The past year politically and nationally has been a major disappointment. That sentiment is expected to be carried on into the new year. In fact, I predict it is going to be a very difficult year for parliamentary democracy in Malaysia.

It is the Members of Parliament who are the guardians of parliamentary democracy in a constitutional monarchy-parliamentary democracy form of government which is our form of government. It is the MPs who shoulder the responsibility of ensuring that parliamentary democracy is upheld and practised without compromise in the country as it is parliamentary democracy which protects the rights of the people to self-govern.

The challenge will be to see if our MPs will fight for the people when parliamentary democracy is threatened in any way.

It would be interesting to see if and when our MPs would even be able to receognize when there is a threat to parliamentary democracy! Since the Sheraton moves in 2020, the people have not seen the ability of MPs to discern when there is such a threat and to act to avert it.

It was hoped that the 2022 general election would have changed that reality but that never materialised.

It is very unlikely that we will see our MPs act differently in 2024! If they do, it would be a miracle!

But then, I am a believer of miracles. So, let’s see what happens and whether our MPs will fight on our behalf or acquiesce to expediency or the forces the unity government is beholden to!

Politics and national issues aside, personally, I’m sure all of us have our own resolutions. My 2024 wish is for all our wishes to come true!

Happy New Year, all!

MPs who speak up and Muda’s now moment

Uncategorized, , , , ,

For the first time since PKR president and PH chairman Anwar Ibrahim became prime minister, PH and PH-allied MPs are speaking up. Up to now, former vocal PH MPs have kept their thoughts to themselves, but now they have begun asking the Anwar government questions.

Just recently, PKR’s Subang MP Wong Chen, Petaling Jaya MP Lee Chean Chung and Selayang MP William Leong Jee Keen urged the government to consider declassifying PJD Link’s concession agreement from the Official Secrets Act (OSA) 1972.

They — rightly — could not see the reason for secrecy, as a toll highway agreement does not involve trade secrets or intellectual property or in some way exposes a national threat. These are the three considerations to place an issue under the OSA.

An answer is still forthcoming and until the people get an answer, one can only conclude that whatever the government considers a “secret” has little or no benefit to the people. If it did, the government would have loudly proclaimed it!

Nevertheless, these MPs must be credited for doing their job and querying their PM even if they belong to the latter’s party and may have to face the consequences!

They understand the principle that an MP’s loyalty is first to his/her constituents. This must come first even if it goes against their PM. In fact, especially if their leaders’ actions need to be questioned!

Likewise, with Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman, who is the president of Muda, which is a party in the incumbent unity government. He broke the silence on his side by raising the littoral combat ship (LCS) scandal in the ongoing session of Parliament.

Syed Saddiq told Parliament that he had submitted a motion to Dewan Rakyat Speaker Johari Abdul to discuss the LCS scandal in detail but that it was rejected because the issue was “not a matter of public interest” and “not urgent”. He has asked the Speaker to reconsider the decision.

The Speaker explained that his reasons for rejecting the MP’s request were that they did not fulfill standing orders.

The point, however, is that no other MP raised the issue especially when the Anwar government had increased the cost while the number of ships to deliver was reduced. This is an issue of national importance as it involves taxpayers’ money and was vehemently criticised by PH MPs, including Anwar, and yet, it is not allowed for debate?

Strange! But kudos to Syed Saddiq for raising the issue. Hopefully, more MPs will follow suit and more such issues will be heard in Parliament.

The objective is not to criticise Anwar for the sake of criticising but to raise issues of concern for the people and one or two do it occasionally, but more MPs should be doing it.

Raising the LCS scandal in Parliament may work well in Muda’s favour. It is an issue that would resonate with urban voters, especially the youth, and win support for Muda aspirants who want a shot at becoming assemblypersons and take part in the coming state elections.

Urban voters, Malays and non-Malays, especially in Selangor and Negri Sembilan, disappointed by PH, may want an alternative voice to represent them. Muda may be that choice. Muda’s appeal to urban youths should be galvanized with public issues such as the LCS scandal.

If it intends to get support from disgruntled PH supporters and those who didn’t vote in the previous election, Muda needs to rethink its alliance with PH. Muda needs to know if it is willing to continue backing Anwar knowing fully well that means backing the powerful forces behind him. If by backing Anwar, it would be difficult for Muda to move forward in Anwar’s unity government, then, it may be better for Muda to go independent.

If Muda wins enough seats it might end up as the kingmaker! It should deploy a strategy of alienating neither PH nor the opposition Perikatan Nasional (PN) and contest seats where neither is likely to win.

PN parties Bersatu and PAS may not be able to relate with the urban Malays or non-Malay voters as well as they can in the conservative north. The only party allied with PN that might be able to resonate with urban voters is Pejuang — if it drops race-bashing and if it has been able to win some more grassroots support.

Urban voters need another platform to freely express their concerns. Muda may be poised to fill that vacuum now. It may lose all the seats it contests but, then, again it might win a few!

How the MPs let the people down

Uncategorized,

The main justification for the unity government led by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is that it kept PAS — as the dominant Malay party with 42 seats — out of government. On the king’s orders, political parties formed the unity government without PAS and saved the country from swinging to the radically Islamic far right.

But could the same objective have been achieved without the king saying anything? Yes, if the MPs fought for constitutional compliance.

When the king suggested the formation of a unity government, both Anwar, whose Pakatan Harapan (PH) coalition won the most seats (81), and Muhyiddin Yassin, whose Perikatan Nasional (PN) won 74 seats, should have respectfully but firmly turned down the offer and told him to let them do their job of forming a government.

They should have said, “Tuanku, with all due respect, under the federal constitution, it is the MPs who should form the government, not the constitutional monarch. Just give us the time to do it.” Or something to that effect!

Then the intense negotiations would begin. The first thing Anwar should have done was to negotiate with Muhyhiddin who had declared that he would not work with Anwar. If Anwar, however, was serious about what was best for the nation he would have brought something to the table that PN could work with — not benefits to the PN coalition but for the voters it represents.

To keep PAS out of the government, Anwar could have suggested that PAS would not have any representation in government and in exchange, the DAP, wouldn’t have any either, or only a minimal representation if absolutely necessary.

Anwar knew that Muhyiddin was eyeing the prime minister’s post as he was, too. That too could have been brought to the table. He gives up the post if Muhyiddin gives up his claim to it.

PN was in a strong position then as the Sabah parties and Gabungan Parti Sarawak were with PN. Comfortable with PN, the latter were probably “blur”, sleeping on the job, to realise the significance of PAS’s dramatic rise. But while the negotiations were ongoing, the Sabah parties and GPS might have changed their mind once the significance of PAS’ rise had sunk in and they decided to leave PN.

That would have made it easier for Anwar to negotiate with PN. If Anwar had failed after trying hard, demonstrating his willingness by giving up his ambition to become PM, the king would then give Muhyiddin the chance to form a majority government.

By then the Sabah parties and GPS would very likely have understood the need to distance themselves from PN because of PAS and it is doubtful that PN would have been able to get a majority.

If, somehow, PN succeeded in forming a majority government and presented themselves to the king, there is one card the king could have pulled out to reject the PN government. As head of Islam in the country, he could — if he had competent advisers to advise him — reject a PAS-majority PN government on the grounds that PAS as an Islamic party would be detrimental to the country and by extension to the reputation of Islam in the country and advise PAS to leave the coalition — if it comes to that. But MPs need to negotiate and come to a solution in such a way that the king does not need to make such a decision.

When it comes to the king, MPs seem ambivalent about their relationship with the king. The constitution states that the king is the head of state. In a constitutional monarchy-parliamentary democracy, that is a ceremonial role with very specific duties defined in the constitution.

The simplistic interpretation that some people choose to follow is that the head of state means that the constitutional monarch is the boss of the government. That is not true in a constitutional monarchy-parliamentary democracy. The federal constitution makes it very clear that the prime minister is the head of government but the head of state is not the boss of the head of government. The prime minister does not report to the head of state. He reports to the people.

Therefore, it is the responsibility of the MPs — not the king — to solve the issue of a hung government through negotiations.

After GE15, one issue made that very difficult. PH’s insistence that Anwar should be prime minister. Through negotiations, an alternative government without PAS could have been formed if Anwar was willing to give up that position in exchange for some benefits not for himself but for the people.

If the compromises were agreed upon through negotiations, the choice of a prime minister would be nominated by the political parties involved and selected by them. The name for the prime minister’s position may be new but he would get the support of the people the parties represented and there would be no reason to topple the government. Political stability is ensured.

Through negotiations, it is also possible that Anwar might have been selected to be prime minister by consensus. But, that is something we will never know because MPs didn’t fight to form their own government.

This is the parliamentary democracy that the MPs should have practised. But, they didn’t do it either because they were ignorant of what was expected of them under the constitution or they had a personal agenda to which they chose to give priority.

PH’s insistence that Anwar as prime minister-designate was a non-negotiable issue made negotiations and compromises impossible. There would have been a stalemate, and, perhaps PH banked on it and didn’t press for negotiations and weakly told the king that they could not form a government and abdicated their responsibility to form a government and gave that authority to the king.

The MPs could have still said no to the king and insisted on negotiating with Anwar. They, however, may have thought it best not to disrespect the king and obeyed even though it wasn’t constitutional.

That was a mistake because they failed to do what they should have done — fought to form the government. As a result, who, in the end, became the main beneficiaries of this unity government? The people or the political parties and those who put them in power?

So, now, the people are stuck with a prime minister who won support on his cries for “Reformasi” but who has turned his back on reforms and his supporters, who is on a witchhunt, and whose every decision is now questionable.

The point of revisiting this issue is to show that no course of action is justifiable if it contravenes the federal constitution. The only people who can let that happen are the MPs. And they let us down by not fighting to form a government that represents the majority after GE15.

The state elections in Penang, Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu, Selangor and Negeri Sembilan are coming soon. We hope that the elected assemblypersons will not disappoint the people should there be a hung state government. Candidates standing for elections must size up the political situation correctly and know which is the best alliance to form that benefits the people not themselves or their parties.

They should resolve whatever issue that comes up by negotiating among themselves and not running to the Sultans to help form a government. They should be prepared to use every democratic procedure at their disposal under the state and federal constitutions to ensure that the choices of the people are respected.

The people must know what the MPs did or did not do and ensure that the representatives they choose at the state level are unlike these MPs but are candidates who will fight to deliver the goods to the people and not use their votes to help themselves first.

MPs, wake up!

Uncategorized, ,

There was a recent report that Perikatan Nasional (PN) was planning a coup which PN party Bersatu’s deputy president Ahmad Faizal Azumu later dismissed as baseless. Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) chief whip and its lead party, Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu (PBB)’s senior vice-president Fadillah Yusof, who is also a deputy prime minister, had reportedly said that no one had approached them about forming a new government.

It might have been just a rumour but it is reflective of the desire of some political parties to change governments. If PN wants to change the government it must be certain that it can muster a majority from the Members of Parliament (MPs). With its 74 seats, inclusive of PAS’ 49 seats, PN would need the support of GPS (23), Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS-6), Warisan (3), a few other East Malaysian parties and Muda (1) to form a government with a simple majority.

Comfortable in government, it is unlikely that PN will make much headway to get the support of parties already in government. The latter wouldn’t want to rock the boat.

Should PN somehow be able to get a majority of MPs to support it and initiates an attempt to topple the incumbent unity government, it needs to be sure it has the support of the majority of Malays to justify its move.

No doubt PN won 54% of the Malay vote but it needs to be ascertained as to whether that figure is reflective of the preference of the majority of Malays nationwide or whether that figure simply reflects the fact that Malay voter turnout in PN’s mainly rural base was very high, hence inflating the percentage of Malay vote in its favour.

In other words, the 54% Malay vote may not be representative of the Malay vote in the urban areas where the majority of Malays are now located. Until the Malay vote is inclusive of the Malay majority in the urban areas, no Malay-based party or coalition can claim it has the support of the Malay majority.

PN has the largest number of Malay parliamentary seats because more parliamentary seats were delineated in the rural areas where the Malay majority once was. That majority has splintered as the majority of Malays are now in the urban areas and until more Malay-majority parliamentary constituencies are created in the urban areas, the Malay vote will not be representative of the majority of Malays.

So, PN can not justify a coup — if it’s planning one — on the grounds it represents the Malay majority because it is debatable if it does.

In the absence of a redelineation of parliamentary constituencies to give more weight to the Malay majority in the urban areas, the only solution to claiming the support of the largest community in the country — the Malays — is to form an alliance between the rural Malay-based coalition and the urban Malay-based party/coalition. In the current scenario that would be a PN alliance with Pakatan Harapan (PH).

Unfortunately for PH, its Malay-based party, PKR, lost nearly half of its Malay support in the last election and PN has declared it will not support PH. If one or all of the newer parties win seats in the urban areas, then they would replace PKR as the urban Malay coalition which can join forces with PN to form a comfortable majority.

GPS and GRS, however, might be reluctant to join such an alliance which would have a dominant PAS with 49 seats as it might be uncomfortable with its Christian voters who are the majority races in Sabah and Sarawak.

What then, would be the best alternative? It all depends on whether MPs will fight for the interests of their voters — even if it means going against their leaders when it is clear they have compromised the constitution.

If their constituents want it, MPs are duty-bound to form alliances and/or change an administration but they have to do it without involving the king or the sultans in order to respect the mandate of the people.

MPs should be prepared to hunker down for tough negotiations and — whatever the tradeoffs — ensure that the interests of the people are not traded off for a political solution. If MPs don’t know how to find a solution without sacrificing the interests of the voters, then they are not fit to be MPs. They are sleeping on the job and simply following a path of least resistance if it benefits them.

The current political landscape is fluid and crisis-prone because no MP has so far demonstrated the leadership skills of finding a solution without selling out the interests of the voters and compromising the constitution.

While crises are unstable periods, they are ripe with possibilities for leaders to emerge who can muster the support of the people. The people are waiting to see for such leaders to rise up who have the skills to lead and fight to uphold the sovereignty of the nation without resorting to cheating and forming unsavoury alliances that put leaders in the debt of others.

The MPs need to wake up and test their mettle during these trying times and prove their leadership qualities and their worthiness to represent the people.

If they won’t, perhaps, it is time to replace them with MPs who can be leaders and fill the vacuum that currently exists.

A possible way out of the current political gridlock

Uncategorized, , ,

Umno signaled that it is preparing for the 15th General Election (GE15) soon when it announced that the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between the government and the opposition Pakatan Harapan will not be extended beyond July 31, the date by which the government would not call for elections.

Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob has concurred with Umno. So, all political parties will now be gearing up for the GE at any time. If the GE is called soon after July 31, the passing of an anti-hopping bill, which is a condition of the MoU, will only benefit Umno.

So, it wasn’t surprising that Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi when announcing the end of the MoU on July 31, also said that the anti-hopping bill should be passed soon. That precisely is the reason why it should not be passed.

Umno will be unable to become the sole Malay-based party with the most number of MPs if some of its MPs left the party and joined other parties. Umno needs its stable of MPs intact in order to form a coalition with a majority. If a number of its MPs leave the party, Umno will not succeed in forming the next government.

Umno MPs, however, may be reluctant to leave Umno because they need Umno’s machinery and cash reserves to win their seats. But, after winning the seats, they may be more willing to switch sides.

For this reason alone, it might be better for the anti-hopping bill to be deferred, preferably to another time under an able leadership that can provide the oversight to table a well-thought-through ironclad bill that strengthens the constitution rather than compromise or clash with other parts of the constitution.

If the bill is deferred, opposition parties may risk losing some of their MPs in or after the GE. But that can be addressed with individual contracts with candidates who are selected to stand for election.

At this time in the history of our young nation, letting go of the anti-hopping bill until another time will be seen as a magnanimous move by the non-Malay and urban parties to give other Malay-based MPs room to move until a Malay-majority coalition is formed that excludes Umno, PAS and Bersatu. It may be an incentive for MPs to switch to other parties in order to defeat Umno.

Already, opposition MPs are suggesting a “big tent” strategy to bring opposition parties under one banner. If they succeed, it would be a clear indication that Umno or its coalition, Barisan Nasional, will be unable to get a majority. That might be another incentive for MPs currently in the government to leave their parties to join the Opposition.

The current gridlock that has kept political parties from moving ahead may be broken when MPs move to the Opposition that can form the next government. They would save themselves and the nation. Think about it!

Will the Budget be passed?

Uncategorized, ,

Likely? Maybe? It has already been passed at the policy stage by a voice vote. Warisan, Pejuang and Muda MPs’ request for a bloc vote — which would have recorded every MP’s vote or whether he/she abstained — was rejected because it failed to get the minimum 15 MPs’ votes needed to allow it.

Pakatan Harapan MPs, bound by the MoU they signed with the Ismail Sabri Yaacob unconstitutional government, did not support the three other opposition parties’ request. That is a pity because a bloc vote would have revealed the actual level of support for Budget 2022. Now, we will never know because the MoU has prevented the gauge of actual support.

Understandably, MPs in the Sabri government who may not be supportive of the race-centric budget did not support the request for a bloc vote. They, too, upheld the pacts their parties made with partners in the government.

As a result, because of the pacts made, MPs have their hands tied up and have failed to follow the norms of parliamentary debate and use the tools available in a parliamentary democracy to vote according to the interests of their constituents.

What checks and balances are there now in the Dewan Rakyat? They have been neutralised by the pacts political parties have made with each other. PH MPs do question the government and express their criticisms but the government continues as it likes. What is evident is that more MPs have become silent.

In the face of a weak Dewan Rakyat, the government continues to function with impunity. This isn’t what we, the people, elected our MPs for.

In this culture of pact-beholden compromised MPs, it is heartening to see Pejuang, Warisan and especially Muda MPs conducting themselves in the way parliamentarians should — as free agents in the Dewan Rakyat.

Muda’s young MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman stands out for supporting the request for bloc voting. Though young, he understands the significance of an MP’s vote and knows how the game should be played according to the rules of the Dewan Rakyat, discerning when to support an initiative and when not to. My hope is that he doesn’t get sucked into the current culture of making pacts to get what the leaders want.

In answer to my headline question, Budget 2022 will likely be passed at the final stage because PH will honour the MoU. Unless, however, the outcome of the state elections in Malacca tomorrow favours PH and it forms the state government.

If PH wins, it might reject the budget — on the confidence that the people may be willing to vote for it — and trigger the process to form a majority coalition in the Dewan Rakyat or be prepared for a general election, following a defeated budget.

PH got a helping hand from Pejuang chairman Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who exposed former premier Najib Razak’s request for a piece of free land — under an Act that offers such gifts to former prime ministers — in the Dewan Rakyat. Najib has been convicted and found guilty of corruption charges. Until the Appeals Court rejects the High Court decision, he is considered guilty and Mahathir questioned why the current Cabinet was considering such a request from a convicted premier.

That expose might cost Umno candidates some votes that might benefit PH. We will have to wait to see the results of tomorrow’s election to know for sure. My inclination is for PH to win because it is the logical best choice for Malacca.

Whether PH wins or loses tomorrow’s elections, it is hoped that the coalition will initiate or support a request for bloc voting when Budget 2022 is presented for final reading.

It’s the people’s right to know how their elected MPs voted with regard to the budget that will affect every citizen. No pact or deal should deprive the people of that right.