Tag Archives: unity govt

What’s worse than a bad government?

Uncategorized, , ,

Not an incompetent one. Not even a corrupt or autocratic government if it were elected by the people. But an unelected government that does not respect the mandate of the people.

That is what Malaysians witnessed helplessly in the past three years as three governments were formed overruling the mandate of the people. Muhyiddin Yassin’s Perikatan Nasional (PN) and Ismail Sabri Yaakob’s Umno-PN governments were appointed governments. So is current Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s Pakatan Harapan (PH)-led unity government.

In other words, all three are unconstitutional governments; they were not installed on the mandate of the people, which explains why the first two did not last long and why the third will also not last long. The first was removed by a power-crazy Umno, and the second by an early general election triggered by strong criticisms of an ineffective administration. The third will likely be removed by an opposition that has the support of the majority but was out-maneuvered to form a government.

An unconstitutional government always faces the risk of being thrown out by parties who are able to do so by any means as evidenced by the past two administrations. In the same way, the threat of a change of government will continue to hang over the unity government and prevent it from being effective.

Anwar’s government will be unable to execute policies, whether long-term or short-term, pending another political upheaval leading to a change of government in the immediate future. Investors will prefer to take a wait-and-see approach. This means the economy won’t move forward despite all his talk, billion ringgit Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) and suggestions from powerful allies.

As long as the threat of a change of government hangs over his head, Anwar will be unable to execute development plans.

That is the problem with an unconstitutional government. It will be unable to move forward because responsible MPs will strive to restore constitutional integrity.

If we have unconstitutional governments it is because MPs allowed the mandate of the people to be overruled. These MPs need to understand that their first duty is to their voters and not sell their votes for expediency — whether political, fiscal or religious.

It is unbelievable how some of these MPs’ statements reveal their lack of understanding of democracy. Take Deputy Prime Minister Fadillah Yusof who actually told political parties not to contest in tomorrow’s (Nov 4)Jepak state elections because GPS (his party) will win anyway and contesting is simply a waste of time and resources! Why even hold elections then? Just appoint assemblypersons. Then we will have an autocracy.

Such statements should not be coming from MPs, but it has and it simply shows their lack of commitment to the parliamentary democracy this country practises. That is the reason why there is political instability because our MPs are not fighting for the people according to the democratic principles as prescribed in the federal constitution but allow expediency to take precedence over constitutional integrity.

MPs must be committed to restoring constitutional integrity and do everything they can to achieve it. PN must be commended for fighting to ensure that the mandate of the majority is restored.

Until constitutional integrity is restored, there will be instability and Anwar’s government will face an uncertain future and will be unable to implement development plans, which means the people suffer. The longer it stays in government, the longer the people suffer.

For the moment, after PN failed to win the Pelangai state elections, the unity government can enjoy a little respite. The idea was if PN won Pelangai, it would mean it would have the support of the people and the confidence to trigger a slew of by-elections which if they win will give them an outright majority to form the next government.

That did not work out as expected but Anwar should not think his full term as prime minister is now secure.

As in the way of life, when out of the blue a wild card is dealt, a breakthrough follows. If that wild card appears, it will be to PN’s advantage. When that happens, the MPs must once again choose sides — free of the encumbrances of an MoU — to ensure that a constitutionally formed government is set up.

Perhaps, that wild card has already been dealt. If it has and PN recognises it, act wisely, not just for the good of the country but for the good of humanity. Only good will follow.

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.