A BN-PR unity government? 28 February 2009

Malaysian Insider reports that PAS President, Mr. Abdul Hadi Awang mooted the idea of a ‘unity government’, to face the current economic turmoil.

We must first detach the spin that Malaysian Insider has placed upon Mr. Hadi’s call. The news portal website claimed that Mr. Hadi’s proposal was a ’sign that Pas has yet to abandon the idea of forging a closer relationship with Umno’. Yes, PAS last year was ravaged with factionalism over the ‘muzakarah’ with UMNO for ‘Malay-Muslim’ unity, and Mr. Hadi has been ‘implicated’ in the attempts to do so by certain leaders within PAS. However, seeing Mr. Hadi’s statements recently, I do feel that the ‘muzakarah’ faction in PAS no longer entertains the idea with any serious thought.

A reading of the article will reveal that Mr. Hadi never said that the unity government that he proposed was one based on Malay-Muslim unity. His proposal was within the context of national unity. By saying that he has yet to moot the idea to the Pakatan Rakyat leadership, it implies that his suggestion is not a PAS-UMNO government, but a bi-partisan, Barisan Nasional-Pakatan Rakyat government. He said:

We need to look common ground in uniting political parties in carrying out responsibilities, it’s not that we cannot disagree, but we want this common ground to be given priority, before we spend our time on issues that we disagree on.

Most importantly, the people must be united. It has to take precedence over party interest. Let us sacrifice some of our rights sincerely for the sake of saving our country.

I wish to suggest to the outgoing Prime Minister to make some changes, to at least complete his agenda in reforming the judiciary, eradicating corruption and I believe Barisan Nasional cannot do it alone.

To do it fairly it must involve all parties, in times of crisis it is important for all of to carry out our duties collectively.

So the knee-jerk reaction by some at his suggestion is unfair to Mr. Hadi. He has tried to bridge the political divide with his suggestion, and it seems to me that he is sincerely trying end our political woes, especially when we are staring at recession in the face. Indeed, the first Finance Minister and Prime Minister designate, Mr. Najib Razak, has announced that the fourth quarter GDP for our nation is at 0.1%. That is how close we are to a recession.

A ‘unity government’, or ‘national government’, is a broad coalition government consisting of all, or at least all major, political parties in times of national crisis or emergency. Indeed, after the race riots of 1969, a unity government was formed with opposition parties like Gerakan (at that time) and PAS joining Barisan Nasional. Of course, we all know that PAS was later kicked out of BN after it was no longer useful. Yet a unity government is not at all alien to our nation. Even UMNO veteran and Gua Musang MP Mr. Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah mooted the idea as recently as last year.

Many feel that the level of politicking in this country has reached an unbearable high. Politicians are more concerned at scoring political points over one another, whilst the rakyat are left to cope with the economic turmoil. A unity government, in theory, would certainly reduce the amount of politicking by these politicians and allow them to focus on brining the nation out of it’s financial rut.

Yet, a unity government will only be as successful as the individuals that make it up. It can only work if both sides agree to work together for the common good of the nation, to set aside political differences for a common goal. Unfortunately, I do not think that our politicians are mature enough and selfless enough to make such a government work. We will probably see more bickering between politicians, with party A trying to upstage party B even though they are effectively in the same government. If you thought the current government is a flip-flop one, a BN-PR government will see more flip-flops than a footwear store!

Politics in Malaysia has come to a point that there is animosity between the parties. So much so that it would be very difficult to set the two main coalitions upon a common table, let alone to reach a consensus. A BN-PR unity government at this point in time would result in a non-functioning government, which would worsen the situtation.

Further, there is also the problem with allocating parties to a respective portfolio. I’m sure DAP or PKR would want the Finance portfolio. PR would not allow BN to hold the powerful Home Ministry portfolio. Who would become the PM and DPM? These questions are difficult to answer and may never be answered.

Thus, whilst I applaud Mr. Hadi for trying to look at the bigger picture, I must say that I feel that his suggestion is doomed for failure. Much as I want PR to be part of the government, just to ‘balance’ BN’s control of the nation, the reality is the idea is too forward thinking and too idealistic to succeed.

Perak Speaker quizzed by MACC 26 February 2009

So the MACC questioned the Perak assembly speaker, Mr. V. Sivakumar. This was after the police questioned him a few days ago, all relating to his decision to suspend Mr. Zambry, the BN MB of Perak and Mr. Zambry’s six exco members.

I have no idea what crime the Speaker could possibly have committed. Yes, the Speaker might not have followed procedure, yes you can challange the legality of his decision, but what is  crystal clear is that he has not committed any crime. What business does the police have with him.

Similarly, why should the MACC investigate him. Has he taken bribes? Abused his power?

More importantly, why is no probe conducted on the actions of the four frogs? And the collapse of the Perak government?

No Further Action (NFA) for three in Lingam tape scandal 26 February 2009

From the Malaysian Insider:

That’s correct… No action on three in Lingam probe

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 25 — Three out of four persons being investigated in relation to the infamous V. K. Lingam video clip case, have been cleared of graft charges, the prime minister told Parliament today.

Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi told Wee Choo Keong (PKR-Wangsa Maju) in a written reply that the three cases had been marked “NFA” — which means no further action will be taken.

The file on one of the four persons originally investigated remain open. The PM did not name any of the four persons.

Abdullah said there was insufficient evidence to charge the three persons under the Anti-Corruption Act 1997.

The Lingam video clip was widely circulated on the Internet in 2007.

In the grainy clip, Lingam is recorded having a telephone conversation apparently with a minister and appears to be brokering judicial appointments.

The video clip which was recorded by Loh Gwo Burne, who is now the PKR MP for Kelana Jaya, sparked a major public outcry.

A Royal Commission was set up to investigate the videp clip but the findings were inconclusive regarding Lingam’s role in any alleged brokering of judicial appointment.

During the hearing, Lingam famously said “it looks like me, it sounds like me,” when questioned if he was indeed the man in the clip.

The V. K. Lingam video clip scandal was a significant contributing factor towards the Barisan Nasional (BN) government’s poor performance in last year’s general elections.

Four investigation files were opened by anti-corruption officers, the prime minister said in Parliament today.

Three of the cases were “deferred” to the Attorney-General’s Chambers, while one was marked “NFA” by the director of the legal and prosecution department in the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission.

Of the three cases “deferred” to the Attorney-General’s Chambers, two were marked “NFA” while the remaining case remains open.

Wee told reporters later that the director of the legal and prosecution department did not have the power to decide on a case but to only investigate.

“This is unheard of and first time as a lawyer. Why are they taking so long? The last time they said that the paper has already been sent but now they say it is for further investigation,” he said.

Yes my fellow Malaysians, after going through all the trouble with the video clip, the authorities could not find ’sufficient evidence’ for prosecutions. ‘No Further Action’, ‘NFA’.

Shocking, yes, but unexpected? Not really.

After all, there are some high-profile personalities implicated in the video. Two former chief justices. A successful business tycoon. A former prime minister. A current serving secretary general of the ruling party. And of course, the man who look, talks and sounds like Mr. V.K. Lingam.

Maybe because it doesn’t involve cows. I think if it involves cows, we’ll find ’strong evidence’, won’t we Mr. Ahmad Said of MACC?

And no, I won’t let you call Mr. Tengku Adnan a cow.

50 percent of UMNO cases closed, says MACC 24 February 2009

Berita Harian reports that 50 percent of complaints on corruption of UMNO individuals lodged at the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC) have been closed. The 45 out of 90 cases had to be closed due to ‘lack of evidence’.

According to the MACC, the complainant did not provide evidence as they only made a ‘general complaint’, without submitting proof. 18 cases are still pending investigations, whilst 27 has been submitted to the party’s disciplinary board as the cases concern ‘disciplinary matters’.

Prime Minister Mr. Abdullah Badawi has asked to ‘accept the MACC decision on UMNO cases‘.

Now during the heat of the UMNO divisional elections last year, I have heard  countless stories of money politics, and from UMNO sources no less. Of course, since I am not an UMNO member, I cannot vouch for the truth of these stories. Yet if there were true, the 90 complaints lodged must surely be the tip of the corruption iceberg. Yet out of the 90, only a handful will reach prosecution stage. Those charged a political ‘minnows’, a branch leader here, a division leader there. The charge? RM200 or RM300 to vote for the particular individual.

What about the big fishes? What about the lobbying and persuading to be nominated for the top posts in the party?

As I said before, the MACC really needs to show that it is independent from executive control.

I see, QC eh? 24 February 2009

When I read that the Barisan Nasional Mentri Besar of Perak, Mr. Zambry Abdul Kadir, is seeking the advice of a Queen’s Counsel in London, I must say that I feel quite insulted.

As a Malaysian lawyer, I could not fathom the need to run to our former colonial masters to find a solution to the crisis in Perak. The Malaysian Bar itself has around 12,500 lawyers, are none of us qualified to offer advice on the laws of our own country? Will the barrister from London give better opinion on the constitution of Perak? Surely we have our own constitutional law experts, without the need to go overseas.

When Mr. Mahathir underwent his first major heart operation, he did not do the operation overseas, like many did at that time. Instead, he choose to let a team of Malaysian doctors operate him, a first at the time. The former premier staked his life in the hands of a group of Malaysians, just to prove that Malaysians can indeed be as good, or even better, than other nationals.

A heart operation would be the same in Malaysia and elsewhere. A legal problem, on the other hand, would be require different solutions in different jurisdictions. The best person to handle a Malaysian legal problem would arguably be a Malaysian laywer. Yet, Mr. Zambry placed his trust on the orang putih.

This colonial mentality really isn’t suprising. UMNO would like to think of itself as the ultimate Malay party. Yet, it still calls itself the ‘United Malays National Organization’ and not ‘Organisasi Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu‘.

More importantly, who is paying for the trip to London and back?

Amaran rakyat Selangor kepada UMNO-BN 22 February 2009

Rentetan peristiwa sejak beberapa minggu yang lepas telah menimbulkan banyak persoalan. Sejak tersingkir kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat di Perak, khabar angin kini bertiup kencang bahawa ada usaha-usaha untuk menjatuhkan kerajaan Selangor pula. Samada khabar tersebut benar atau sebaliknya tidak dapat dipastkan, tetapi melihat ’serangan’ yang bertubi-tubi dikenakan kepada pemimpin dan kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat di Selangor, adalah tidak mustahil bahawa UMNO-BN sedang berkomplot untuk menjatuhkan kerajaan Selangor.

Ia bermula dengan cakap-cakap yang mengatakan bahawa seorang ADUN PKR di Selangor, Badrul Hisham Abdullah akan meninggalkan parti tersebut dan menyertai UMNO setelah beliau dikatan ‘hilang’ dan ‘ditangkap khalwat’. Kemudian, tersebar pula fitnah di laman web pro-UMNO bahawa Exco kerajaan Selangor,  Halimah Ali ditangkap khalwat oleh Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor. Khabar angin yang melibatkan kedua-dua ADUN Pakatan Rakyat ini telah dinafikan, tetapi nampak gayanya khabar angin tersebut hanyalah permulaan.

Minggu lepas, negara digemparkan dengan berita penyebaran foto Exco Selangor, Elizabeth Wong. Walaupun ada pemimpin Barisan yang bersimpati dengannya dan menyelar penyebaran foto-foto tersebut, masih ada juga terdapat sampah politik seperti Khir Toyo, Ali Rustam dan Azalina Othman yang menyuruh Wong untuk meletakkan jawatan. Wong akhirnya menwarkan perletakkan jawatannya kepada PKR, namun disuruh untuk ‘bercuti’ dan mempertimbangkan keputusannya.

Saya tidak percaya bahawa UMNO-BN adalah dalan di sebalik penyebaran foto tersebut. Akan tetapi, walaupun UMNO-BN tidak ada kaitan dalam penyebarannya, saya yakin bahawa UMNO-BN tidak akan teragak-agak untuk menggunakan foto-foto tersebut untuk tujuan politik mereka. Reaksi pemimpin UMNO seperti Ali Rustam, Azalina Othman dan Khir Toyo, bekas Menteri Besar Selangor yang rata-rata dibenci oleh rakyatnya sendiri, menunjukkan bahawa kepada sesetengah ahli politik UMNO, semuanya ‘halal’ dalam usaha untuk mendapatkan kuasa dan harta.

Terbaru, Ketua Pesuruhjaya SPRM, Ahmad Said Hamdan telah membuat kenyataan yang telah membuktikan bahawa SPRM sebenarnya ‘ajen’ UMNO yang dihias dengan perkataan ’suruhanjaya bebas’. Sebelum sempat pejabat Peguam Negara membuat keputusan untuk mengambil apa-apa tindakan, SPRM telah ‘menjatuhkan kesalahan’ kepada Mentri Besar Selangor, Khalid Ibrahim dengan mengatakan bahawa terdapat ‘bukti kukuh’ bahawa beliau melakukan salahguna kuasa dengan kononnya mengarahkan syarikat milik negeri untuk menyalurkan 46 ekor lembu kepada kawasan Parlimen Bandar Tun Razak untuk dikorbankan. Di samping itu, kononnya terdapat salahguna kuasa dalam penyelenggaraan kerata Lexus milik saudara Khalid yang telah beliau gunakan sebagai kenderaan rasmi dalam menjalankan tugas sebagai Menteri Besar.

Apakah tujuan SPRM membuat pengumuman tersebut? Adakah ianya untuk memberi tekanan kepada pejabat Peguam Negera untuk bertindak? Adakah ianya untuk menghakimi saudara Khalid di dalam ‘mahkamah persepsi umum’ (court of public opinion)? Adakah ianya sebagai balasan kepada saudara Anwar yang sebelumnya telah mempersoalkan SPRM dalam kes cubaan membeli ADUN PKR di Kedah? Setidak-tidaknya, kelakuan SPRM di dalam perkara ini amatlah mencurigakan.

Berikutan dengan apa yang telah berlaku sejak akhir-akhir ini, kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat di Selangor terpaksa menjadi defensif, menangkis segala alegasi dan dakwaan yang dilemparkan kepadanya. Ia sedikit sebanyak mengalihkan tumpuan kerajaan Selangor dalam usaha untuk ‘merakyatkan’ ekonomi negeri tersebut. Usaha paling penting kerajaan Selangor pada ketika ini adalah untuk memastikan tarif air tidak dinaikkan oleh Syabas mengikut perjanjian konsesi yang telah ditandatangani di antara syarikat tersebut dan kerjaan Selangor yang diterajui oleh Khir Toyo dahulu. Itupun diganggu oleh kerajaan Persekutuan, di mana Kementerian Kewangan telah campur tangan di dalam perbincangan tersebut dan dengan motif yang amat mencurigakan.

Sekiranya benar terdapat usaha-usaha untuk menjatuhkan kerajaan Selangor, sudah tentu lebih banyak asakan yang akan datang. Tidak mustahil setiap Exco kerajaan akan dijadikan sasaran, di samping pujukan dan ugutan terhadap ADUN Pakatan untuk meninggalkan parti mereka dan menjadi ‘ADUN bebas yang menyokong Barisan’, ala katak-katak Jamaluddin, Osman dan Hee di Perak.

Sekiranya benar terdapat ‘tangan-tangan gelap’ yang menjadi dalang di Selangor, saya ingin memberikan amaran sekeras-kerasnya kepada mereka yang bertanggungjawab; sekiranya apa yang berlaku di Perak berlaku di Selangor, rakyat Selangor tidak akan berdiam diri. Kami marah dengan apa yang berlaku di Perak, kami akan menjadi lebih marah sekiranya ia berlaku di negeri kami sendiri. Sekiranya UMNO-BN menjatuhkan kerajaan Selangor, kami akan memastikan bahawa mereka yang bertanggungjawab akan menerima balasan. Kami mempertahankan kerajaan yang telah kami pilih secara demokratik dan kami tidak memaafkan mereka yang sanggup mencabuli hak kami sebagai rakyat Malaysia amnya dan Selangor khususnya.

Jangan memperlekehkan rakyat dan buat sewenang-wenangnya. UMNO-BN wajar patuh pada amaran ini. Sekiranya tidak, kami rakyat Selangor akan memastikan bahawa  apabila tiba masanya kami membuat pilihan, UMNO-BN akan terkubur di negeri Darul Ehsan ini untuk selamanya.

Public will be more cynical of the MACC 20 February 2009

When the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC) bill was passed in Parliament last year, the Prime Minister Mr. Abdullah Ahmad Badawi claimed that it will ‘bring back the confidence of the public in the fight against corruption‘.

Public confidence in institutions such as the police, the judiciary and the MACC depends largely on perception. The public will only feel confident of the actions of these institutions if they are perceived to be so. No use having a commission that is supposed to be independent if their actions are perceived to be otherwise.

A string of investigations against UMNO members for alleged money politics seemed to signal a good start to the Commission. Although thus far, those investigated and charged are political ‘minnows’, yet the perception was that the MACC may at last be a non-partisan commission that will investigate graft without fear or favour. The protest by some UMNO members over the MACC’s investigations seemed to indicate that it was doing something right, to make these people feel the heat.

From then on, things started to go downhill for the new commission.

Firstly, the conduct of the MACC in the current Perak fiasco raises serious questions on their supposed independence. When Bota assemblyman Mr. Nasharudin joined PKR, the MACC said that they are investigating the matter, to ensure no bribes are offered. Yet after the four former Pakatan ‘frogs’ leapt into Barisan’s embracing arms, the MACC was silent as a mouse, even though reports were lodged. Surely the matter merits investigation, if the jumping of Mr. Nasharudin to PKR merits investigations, the defections of Messrs. Osman, Jamaludin and Hee must also be looked into.

To compound matters, today the Chief Commissioner of the MACC, Mr. Ahmad Said stated that the MACC will investigate Perak speaker Mr. Sivakumar for alleged ‘abuse of powers’ following the reports lodged by Perak UMNO Youth.

More alarmingly, Mr. Ahmad Said has today declared that the Commission found ’strong evidence’ against Selangor Mentri Besar Mr. Khalid Ibrahim regarding the investigations on alleged abuse of powers in the slaughter of cows for his constituency and the maintenance of his own Lexus car.

I do not wish to comment on whether I feel that Mr. Khalid has abused his powers or not. If he has, then he should be charged and it is up to the court to decide.

What I wish to question is Mr. Ahmad Said’s comment on the matter. Why did he have to make a public comment on the matter? By doing so, Mr. Ahmad Said is essentially giving his judgment in a matter that has not gone to court yet. Surely the MACC, whether there are evidence or not, should just refer the case to the AG’s chambers, without making any public comments on it. This is the normal practice of anti corruption agencies the world over. Is Mr. Ahmad Said trying to paint a picture that Mr. Khalid is guilty, even before he is charged? After what happened in Perak and to Ms. Wong, are these attempts by ‘unseen hands’ to destroy the Selangor government? Is Mr. Ahmad Said’s public declaration a ‘revenge move’ by the MACC on Mr. Anwar’s allegations in Parliament yesterday?

These are the questions that the rakyat will ask.

Why the haste in investigating and charging opposition politicians? What happened to the countless reports against Barisan politicians? Why the double standards?

It’s all about perception. Even if Mr. Khalid is guilty of abuse, people will think that it is a set up, a ploy, an attempt to topple the functioning Selangor government. Malaysians are more cynical lot these days and they never take things at face value, especially when it comes to government linked institutions. They are more likely to believe the conspiracy theories, rumours and speculations, for the simple fact that they have such little faith in the country’s institutions.

By its ’selective conduct’, the rakyat will just be more cynical of the MACC, rather than improving confidence in the new Commission.

The battle for Selangor’s water 19 February 2009

Not many residents of Selangor and Kuala Lumpur know of the ‘battle’ that is going on for our water.

The Federal and Selangor state governments signed a concession agreement with Syabas in 2005. Under the agreement, Syabas was entitled to hike the water tariff up to 37% in 2009. Syabas has asked to do so in January 2009. However, the decision has been differed to 31 March 2009.

Under the Water Services Industries Act 2006, all water assets in West Malaysia must be transferred to the Finance Ministry’s wholly owned Pengurusan Aset Air Berhad (PAAB).

The state government needs to consolidate all water assets, of which it has already owned 80% of, to sell them to PAAB.

As an added impetus, the Selangor government wants to complete the de-privatization of Selangor’s water before 31 March 2009 so as to avoid a steep 37% water tariff hike that will effect millions of residents in the state and Kuala Lumpur and to better manage the water assets in the state. Clearly, privatization has failed Selangor’s residents in relation to water.

PAAB has capped the amount of money it will pay to state governments for water assets at RM9 billion. The Selangor government has offered a whopping RM5.7 billion to four companies to buy all private waters in Selangor, Syabas being one of them. If PAAB pays Selangor RM 9 billion for the assets, the lion’s share will go to the private companies.

The Selangor government thinks its a reasonable offer. Not so the companies, as the seem to be holding out as they think the offer is too low. Selangor has given the companies up to 20 February 2009 to accept the offer.

The companies argue that they should be compensated for future losses and profits. But the government argues that they should not compensate the companies for future profits and rights which the government itself granted.

Further, it terms of Syabas, the government claims that the company had breached several of the terms in the concession agreement and has asked the Energy and Works Ministry to terminate the agreement. The Ministry has not done so.

In any event, it looks likely that the companies will reject the offer. After all,  Syabas especially has a vested interest in prolonging matters so that the price hike will be implemented.

Today, PAAB by way of the National Water Service Commission (SPAN) has stepped in to directly negotiate with the concession holders, claiming that the state government is ‘taking too long’. The Selangor government is viewing this move as ‘mischivious’ and is suspicious of it. The question is that when the Selangor government trying its best to come out with the best deal for the people of the state, SPAN has suddenly appeared in the picture to throw a spanner in the works. Will it be able to give a better offer than the Selangor government to the concession holders and STILL keep water tariffs low?

Whatever it is, I hope that at the end of the day, the parties come up with the best deal for the rakyat. A 37% price hike at this time is too much. Which begs the question: why do we keep entering into these lopsided public agreements?

Stay on and fight! 18 February 2009

I am very saddened with what has occurred over the past two days.

I have never met Ms. Wong. She is not a wakil rakyat in my constituency and any news of her I receive from the media. Yet over the past 11 months or so, she has proved to be a dedicated and selfless assemblywoman and Exco. A shining example of why the people of Selangor ‘voted for change’ last year.

Yet despite her steller performance thus far, the people of Selangor may be deprived of her. All because of the heinous acts of certain individuals who perpetrated a gross invasion of a person’s privacy.

I am not going to immediately blame Selangor’s opposition party for what has happened, despite what some have claimed. Yet I have no doubt that certain political lowlifes like Mr. Mohd. Khir Toyo will definitely exploit what has happened for their selfish political aims. Mr. Khir wasted no time in urging Ms. Wong to resign, even before seeing the supposed photos. Ms. Azalina Othman, the minister, echoed a similar call, saying that Ms. Wong should ‘do the right thing and resign’, although I suspect that with Ms. Azalina it had become personal. My ‘favourite’ UMNO deputy president hopeful Mr. Mohd Ali Rustam also gave his two cents (or less) worth on the whole issue.

However, I do say that some Barisan MPs and assemblymen had the decency to offer their sympathy to Ms. Wong. Such bi-partisan acts are most welcome.

The main problem that I have with this whole issue is how easily some of us have ‘jumped the gun’. From my knowledge, these pictures have yet to be distributed to the public. Only a few newsmen have seen them. Yet so very many of us have claimed that this is a ‘morality’ issue, led of course by people like Mr. Khir and Mr. Ali Rustam. According to the latter, the act of being photographed naked is something that cannot be accepted by the people of this country. Of course, netizens quickly asked; if Mr. Khir or Mr. Ali was photographed naked having a shower (God forbid), should they resign too?

Let’s get this straight. What our politicians and leaders do in their own private time is none of our bloody business. We did not elect them to be monks and nuns, celibate from worldly pleasures. We elected them, theoretically, because we believe that they will dispense they will serve us as our representatives.

So Mr. Chua Soi Lek should not have resigned. His extra-marital affair is a betrayal of the trust of his wife and his family. Not the trust we place upon him as a lawmaker (then) and minister.

Ms. Wong should also not be allowed to resign. Even more so because she is a single woman and have committed no crime, either legally or ‘morally’.

Ms. Wong is clearly a victim in all of this. We might not know who took those pictures and distributed them, but we know that the taking and distributing was without Ms. Wong’s consent. This in itself should put beyond all doubt that Ms. Wong’s privacy has been violated and that we should sympathize, not ostracize her.

If I could say something to Ms. Wong, I’ll tell her this: “Stay on and fight!”.

Dr M’s speech on the removal of royal immunity 15 February 2009

Mr. Amin Iskandar, in his blog, has painstakingly replicated the speech by former premier Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohammad in Parliament on 18 January 1993. He was proposing amendments in the Federal Constitution to remove the immunity of the Malay rulers.

I must say that members of his former party would do well to read his speech to understand what it is to be in a system of constitutional monarchy.

Read it here.

Some excerpts from the speech:

Ketika negara menuntut kemerdekaan, pemimpin-pemimpin negara yang telah mendapat kemenangan besar dan sokongan padu dalam Pilihanraya Umum tahun 1955 telah membuat pilihan supaya sistem pemerintahan di negara ini ialah sistem Demokrasi Berparlimen atau `Parliamentary Democracy` dan Raja Berperlembagaan atau `Constitutional Monarchy`.

…

Oleh kerana begitu mudah Raja-Raja menyerahkan Singapura, Pulau Pinang dan Pangkor kepada penjajah dan kemudiannya menyerah pula negeri-negeri Melayu, maka rakyat tidak lagi boleh menerima sistem yang memberi kuasa hanya kepada Raja dan rakyat tidak diberi peranan apa-apa dalam politik negara. Lagi pun selepas Perang Dunia Kedua, Sistem Raja berkuasa penuh sudah menjadi lapok di seluruh dunia. Di merata-rata tempat Sistem Beraja ditamatkan terus. Di mana ia dikekalkan, kuasa Raja dihadkan oleh Perlembagaan atau undang-undang asas negara. Justeru itu, semasa Persekutuan Tanah Melayu menuntut kemerdekaan, pemimpin- pemimpin rakyat telah mengkaji sistem-sistem pemerintahan dengan mengambilkira sejarah negeri-negeri Melayu dan sistem-sistem pemerintahan lain.

…

Oleh itu lahirlah pendapat bahawa Raja perlu diletak di bawah suatu Perlembagaan yang menentukan kedudukan dan peranan Raja. Dengan cara ini Raja tidak lagi boleh bertindak dengan sewenang-wenangnya. Kuasa Raja akan ditentukan oleh Perlembagaan, iaitu undang-undang asas negara. Namun ada Raja yang sanggup menyerahkan negeri sendiri kepada kuasa asing tanpa menghiraukan Perlembagaan.

…

Dalam usaha menentang Malayan Union dan mengembalikan negeri-negeri Melayu dan negeri-negeri Selat kepada `status quo ante` iaitu keadaan sebelum Perang Dunia Kedua, rakyat telah memainkan peranan yang penting walaupun tidak diperuntukkan oleh undang-undang. Adalah jelas kepada rakyat pada masa itu bahawa Raja tanpa sokongan rakyat mudah dikuasai oleh pihak penjajah dan pihak-pihak lain. Justeru itu, rakyat perlu diberi hak dalam politik dan pentadbiran negara. Peranan rakyat mestilah ditentukan oleh undang- undang.

…

Walaupun wakil rakyat bebas bercakap dalam Dewan Rakyat dan Dewan-Dewan Undangan Negeri mengenai apa juga tajuk, tetapi mereka tidak boleh menyentuh diri Raja-Raja kerana sebarang kritikan atau teguran terhadap Raja boleh ditakrif sebagai hasutan dan mereka boleh didakwa di bawah Akta Hasutan. Peruntukan ini adalah hasil pindaan yang dibuat pada tahun 1971. Sebelum ini, teguran terhadap Raja boleh dibuat di dalam dewan. Di Britain dan di negara-negara lain, ahli-ahli Parlimen bebas menegur atau mengkritik Raja. Adalah jelas bahawa menegur dan mengkritik Raja tidak menghapus kedaulatan Raja.

…

Sementara halangan ke atas teguran ini dikatakan akan memelihara kemuliaan Raja, tetapi apabila Raja tidak ditegur, maka ia tidak akan sedar akan kesalahan yang telah dilakukannya. Dengan itu, mungkin lebih banyak kesalahan akan dilakukan dan kesalahan ini mungkin akan menjadi lebih serius. Ini bukan sahaja akan mencemarkan kemuliaan Raja, bahkan juga boleh menimbulkan kebencian rakyat terhadap Raja. Tidaklah benar jika dikatakan larangan terhadap mengkritik Raja akan memelihara kemuliaan Raja. Sebenarnya kemuliaan Raja akan tercemar kerana larangan ini.

…

Dengan kemungkinan Raja menolak nasihat serta bebas daripada teguran dan sebarang tindakan keadilan, maka Raja sebenarnya bukan Raja Berperlembagaan lagi tetapi menjadi Raja mutlak. Sekali lagi Demokrasi Berparlimen tidak wujud kerana tidak ada tindakan undang-undang yang boleh diambil terhadap Raja yang tidak menerima nasihat Kerajaan rakyat dan melakukan kesalahan.

…

Tetapi oleh kerana Akta Hasutan dan larangan terhadap mengkritik Raja, Raja tidak mendengar dan tidak percaya kepada penasihat mereka apabila maklumat disampaikan berkenaan kegelisahan rakyat. Raja dan keluarga-keluarga di-Raja nampaknya berpendapat bahawa semua ini adalah ciptaan penasihat-penasihat Raja untuk menakutkan Baginda atau untuk merebut hak Raja.

…

Dalam keadaan ini Raja bukan sahaja akan meneruskan amalan-amalan yang tidak disenangi atau disukai oleh rakyat tetapi juga akan melakukan perkara-perkara yang lebih dibenci oleh rakyat. Jika trend ini tidak disekat, perasaan rakyat terhadap Raja tentu akan meluap dan menjadi begitu buruk sehingga pada suatu masa nanti rakyat mungkin tidak lagi dapat membendung perasaan mereka. Perasaan yang diluahkan dalam surat-surat kepada akhbar sebenarnya sudah lama wujud.

…

Harus diingat bahawa penghormatan rakyat terhadap Raja tidak boleh ditentukan oleh undang-undang. Dengan izin, `Respect must be earned`. Mengadakan undang-undang yang menakutkan rakyat tidak akan membawa `respect`. Dengan kesedaran Raja boleh dihadapkan ke mahkamah, Raja tentu akan mengelak daripada melakukan perbuatan yang akan menyebabkan rakyat tidak menghormati Raja. Dengan itu, Institusi Beraja akan lebih dihormati dan lebih berkekalan.

…

Ada pihak yang berpendapat bahawa Raja Melayu diperlukan untuk melindungi orang Melayu. Peristiwa Perjanjian MacMichael dan Malayan Union jelas membuktikan bahawa yang sanggup dan mampu melindungi orang Melayu ialah orang Melayu sendiri. Jika tidak kerana mereka bangun dan menentang Malayan Union, hari ini orang Melayu akan menjadi pengemis di negeri sendiri.Percubaan pihak yang cuba menakutkan orang Melayu terhadap pindaan ini adalah kerana mereka ingin menggunakan sentimen kaum untuk kepentingan parti mereka.

…

Dengan tindakan orang Melayu melawan Malayan Union adalah jelas bahawa nasib orang Melayu berada di tangan rakyat Melayu. Keselamatan orang Melayu tidak terjejas dengan Raja Melayu tidak memiliki hak untuk melakukan jenayah. Ada pihak yang berkata dengan penghapusan hak Raja melakukan jenayah, maka orang Melayu tidak akan Melayu lagi atau akan habislah keistimewaan kedudukan orang Melayu. Ini tidaklah benar. Ini adalah fitnah. Yang akan menjamin Melayu terus Melayu dan hak-hak orang Melayu terus terpelihara ialah orang Melayu sendiri. Merekalah melalui wakil-wakil dan Kerajaan yang mereka pilih yang mencipta dan melaksanakan berbagai-bagai rancangan untuk memelihara dan menebus maruah bangsa Melayu.

…

Malangnya, di Malaysia walaupun ada peruntukan bahawa Raja harus bertindak mengikut nasihat Kerajaan, tetapi pihak Raja memegang kepada tafsiran nasihat yang diterima umum — iaitu nasihat boleh diterima atau ditolak. Tafsiran ini adalah salah. Dalam pada itu, ada pula perkara tertentu yang Raja menganggap ianya tidak perlu diberi nasihat. Dengan ini banyaklah perkara yang dilakukan yang bertentangan dengan Kerajaan yang mewakili rakyat.

…

Masalah yang dihadapi hari ini berpunca daripada pendapat bahawa Raja boleh membelakangkan Kerajaan rakyat. Tindakan curang yang berlaku adalah kerana nasihat tidak dihiraukan. Tidak adanya persetujuan terhadap pindaan ini juga berpunca daripada keengganan Raja menerima nasihat.

(emphasis is mine)

I urge you to visit the blog and read the speech in it’s entirety, especially if you’re one of those who are baying for blood against the ‘perderhakas’ in the recent political drama in Perak.