Snap secara rasmi sertai Pakatan Rakyat

Christine Chan
Malaysiakini.com
Apr 20, 10

Parti Nasional Sarawak (Snap) secara rasmi menjadi anggota keempat Pakatan Rakyat, - menjelang pilihan raya kecil parlimen Sibu pada 16 Mei ini.

Mengumumkan kemasukan Snap hari ini, Ketua Pembangkang, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim berkata tugas pertama parti itu ialah menyokong calon DAP yang akan bertanding di kerusi berkenaan.

Pengumuman calon Pakatan itu akan dibuat pada 27 April.

Snap adalah antara parti tertua di Sarawak dan pernah menjadi anggota parti pemerintah Barisan Nasional sebelum menjadi parti pembangkang.

Mereka tidak mempunyai sebarang kerusi di dewan undangan negeri Sarawak.

Ahad lalu, Anwar dan beberapa pemimpin Pakatan berjumpa di Sibu bagi memeteraikan kerjasama berkenaan.

Pada pilihan raya umum 2008, kekurangan penyelarasan menyaksikan pertandingan lebih dua penjuru di antara Snap, DAP dan PKR - satu tindakan yang memberi kelebihan kepada BN.

Komen: Berubah lagi persaingan politik di Sarawak. Snap yang setia selama ini di dalam BN akhirnya bertindak keluar dari barisan dan menyertai PR. Snap sebenarnya sebelum itu lagi sudah berada di luar barisan apabila ia menghadapai krisis dalaman parti sehingga organisasinya pernah dibubar. Setelah merayu ia kembali bergerak tetapi sebahagian pemimpin yang keluar atau faction yang dominan dari parti tersebut telah pun menubuhkan SPDP sebagai jalan keuar kepada krisis tersebut. Kini kedudukannya di dalam PR menjadi hambatan kepada regim BN di Sarawak. Sedikit sebanyak ia tetap menimbulkan kegusaran kepada Ketua Menteri yang selama ini amat selesa menguasai regim, sekali gus memberi momentum kuat kepada DSAI dan rakan beliau dalam menggembleng tenaga di bumi kenyalang in. Lain hulu lain parang, lain dahulu lain sekarang. Dahulu parang sekarang besi, dahulu sayang sekarang benci.

***

*

Pakatan teruskan projek Putera-AMCJA

Pakatan teruskan projek Putera-AMCJA

Hishamuddin Rais Ogos 6, 09 8:23pm

Sesebuah negara bangsa pada hakikatnya hanya wujud di dalam fikrah warganya. Ia hanya wujud di dalam imaginasi. Negara dan bangsa wujud apabila ada imaginasi kolektif yang dikongsi bersama oleh para warganya. Imaginasi kolektif ini juga wajib dibantu dengan cita-cita, mimpi dan harapan bersama. Tanpa perkongsian imaginasi, tanpa mimpi dan tanpa harapan bersama, tidak mungkin negara bangsa boleh wujud dengan kompak. Di negara kita, pada hakikatnya masih belum wujud lagi satu negara bangsa yang boleh dipanggil "Bangsa Malaysia" - ini bermakna identiti negara bangsa kita belum menggenap dan membatu. Kita boleh memahami kenapa perkara ini berlaku. Pertama, Malaysia satu konsep yang baru. Ia wujud sebagai satu projek kolonial. Kedua, selama 50 tahun lebih, upaya membina negara bangsa telah gagal. Kegagalan ini hasil daripada falsafah dan pandangan dunia parti politik yang memerintah. Ketiga, patahnya pandangan dunia yang cuba melintasi konsep negara bangsa melalui takrifan agama dan kaum. Sebagai sebuah projek kolonial – British memastikan kumpulan politik yang menggantikan kuasa mereka tidak akan melihat penjajah sebagai musuh. Tidak dapat tidak, badan politik yang dipilih oleh British untuk mengambil alih pentabiran Tanah Melayu adalah badan politik yang akan terus bersetia bawah payung British. MCA, MIC dan United Malays National Organisation dipilih oleh British pada 1956 bukan kerana mereka mendapat sokongan menyeluruh atau organisasi mereka kuat tersusun. Badan-badan politik ini diangkat, disokong dan didukung kerana kesetiaan mereka kepada kepentingan British. Kumpulan yang memanggil diri mereka Perikatan menggunakan kaum sebagai asas gerakan dan sokongan mereka. Sekali imbas memang dilihat amatlah logik badan politik ini berpandukan kepentingan kaum masing-masing. Logik ini bergerak untuk jangka masa pendek dalam usaha menyediakan ruang selamat ketika British berundur daripada diserang oleh rakyat yang menuntut kemerdekaan. Untuk jangka panjang, kita sedang melihat dan merasa musibah garis politik yang silap. Garis politik yang berasaskan perkauman ini mula dimunculkan dan dipupuk oleh British pada 1946. Garis politik inilah yang mencengkam kita hingga ke hari ini. Harus disedari bahawa tiga badan politik ini bukan protagonis awal yang bangun menentang British dan menuntut kemerdekaan. Mereka ini - dalam istilah teater - hanyalah pelakon tambahan di permulaan perjuangan melawan British. Kesatuan Melayu Muda, Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya, Parti Komunis Malaya, Angkatan Pemuda Insaf, Angkatan Wanita Sedar, Hizbul Muslimin antara protagonis awal. Protagonis-protagonis ini mengambil dasar melawan British dan telah mengajukan garis politik yang progresif. Pandangan dunia progresif kumpulan ini cuba memandu warga Tanah Melayu pada ketika itu untuk lari daripada asas kaum kepada asas kebangsaan. Ia terbukti dengan draf Perlembagaan Rakyat PUTERA/AMCJA 1947 yang mentakrifkan sesiapa sahaja yang ingin bermastautin di Tanah Melayu pada ketika itu akan dipanggil "Melayu". Projek politik ini cukup radikal. Ia bertujuan memastikan kelahiran satu negara bangsa - Tanah Melayu yang berbagai-bagai bangsa tetapi satu warga negara bangsa. Projek ini telah digagalkan oleh British. Penjajah melihat projek me-Melayu-kan semua bangsa ini amat berbahaya dan bertentangan dengan kepentingan ekonomi kuasa imperial Anglo pada ketika itu. Jika semua orang ditakrif sebagai Melayu, maka strategi "pecah dan perintah" akan kantoi. Apa yang berlaku pada 8 Mac tahun lalu adalah tanda jelas bahawa warga negara kita ini mahu menghidupkan kembali semangat yang terangkum dalam projek Perlembagaan Rakyat 1947. Selama lebih 50 tahun projek untuk mendirikan negara bangsa ini telah tergelincir daripada landasan politik. Lima puluh tahun dalam sejarah tamadun manusia hanyalah sedetik. Dalam pembinaan negara bangsa, 50 tahun juga telalu singkat. Tetapi dalam kehidupan seorang insan, 50 tahun mungkin lebih setengah hayatnya telah berlalu. Justeru kejayaan mengembalikan projek negara bangsa ini wajib dijaga, dikawal rapi agar ia tidak tergelincir sekali lagi. Konsep yang diajukan oleh PUTERA/AMCJA dahulu, kalau diamati, nyata asasnya masih kukuh dan boleh diguna pakai walaupun Tanah Melayu telah menjadi Malaysia. Kalau dahulu cadangannya untuk melahirkan Bangsa Melayu, hari ini kita berniat untuk melahirkan Bangsa Malaysia. Jangan silap faham, Bangsa Melayu atau Bangsa Malaysia ini hanyalah imaginasi yang dibangunkan. Ia hanyalah konsep. Negara bangsa ini juga konsep yang boleh dikonstruksi. Konsep ini wajib disepadukan dengan konsep Ketuanan Rakyat. Ketuanan Rakyat serampang dua mata. Pertama, ia bertujuan membunuh konsep Ketuanan Melayu yang diuar-uarkan oleh United Malays National Organisation. Kedua, Ketuanan Rakyat sebagai satu konstruksi sosial, imaginasi dalam usaha kita bersama untuk melahirkan Bangsa Malaysia. Sayugia diingati – membina negara bangsa bukan tugasan yang mudah. Manusia bukan batu bata yang boleh disusun dengan senang. Tetapi bukan mustahil jika pemimpin badan-badan politik dalam Pakatan Rakyat memiliki pandangan progresif berjangka panjang. Kesilapan dan musibah durjana api perkauman yang kita hadapi selama 50 tahun ini wajib kita jadikan pedoman. Badan politik – malah badan atau kumpulan apa sahaja – yang berasaskan satu kaum telah dibuktikan sebagai jalan salah untuk melahirkan negara bangsa. Malaysia sebagai negara majmuk – pelbagai suku bangsa, kaum, bahasa, agama – wajib menampilkan pemimpin politik dan pembuat pandangan yang memiliki pandangan dunia yang luas yang dapat melintasi batas-batas sempit. Selama lebih 50 tahun lepas kita telah berada dalam kereta api yang gerabaknya bukan sahaja berkelas-kelas dan dipisah-pisah, malah landasannya pun salah. Menuju entah ke mana! Sesudah 8 Mac, semua warga telah masuk kembali ke dalam gerabak kereta api Pakatan Rakyat. Sesiapa yang sedang berada di dalam gerabak kereta api ini tidak banyak memiliki pilihan melainkan belajar untuk kembali mengenali satu sama lain sekali lagi. Kali ini kita tahu Pakatan Rakyat ini sedang bergerak untuk melahirkan projek negara bangsa yang telah disabotaj oleh British pada 1947. Di luar landasan kereta api, pasti ada anjing yang akan terus menyalak tetapi kereta api ini akan terus meluncur mara. Komen: Dukacita saya masih pesimistik..

Bright Rising Star of Nizar

Nizar’s star shines bright in PAS
By Shannon Teoh, The Malaysian Insiders, Thursday April 16 2009

KUALA LUMPUR, April 16 — Just how much has Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin's profile grown in the past 13 months? He was a relative unknown on March 17, 2008, when he was appointed Perak mentri besar.

Today, he is PAS's rising star and a symbol of its possible future where the stigma of Islamic extremism no longer retards its political ambitions.

At the time of writing, the new Bukit Gantang MP has collected vice-presidential nominations for the June party polls from all three divisions that have had their general meetings so far.

The Feb 5 toppling of his government, which has led to a gripping constitutional crisis, has paved the way to a paradigm shift within the party, that for decades, suffered under the perception of Islamic extremism, rendering it "unelectable" to non-Muslims, in the words of research chief Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad.

Dogged by the constant controversy over its espousal of hudud, which prescribes punishments such as amputation of limbs for offences like robbery, and an Islamic theocratic state, Nizar's overwhelming popularity with non-Malays due to his moderate and inclusive stance may further open the floodgates for PAS if he is elected into the vice-presidency.

With the startling success of Nizar in sweeping the non-Malay — 85 per cent of Chinese in the state constituency of Kuala Sepetang voted for Nizar — votes in the April 7 Bukit Gantang polls, PAS now has a clear path from being a Malay belt party, to a truly national and mainstream one.

But whether it chooses to embark on this journey is a question that will only be answered in the June muktamar in Shah Alam.

Observers have long spoken of two main factions existing within the party. The side supporting closer ties with Umno, led by president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang, are labelled the ulama faction, while those who support Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim are tagged the Erdogans because of the opposition leader’s close ties with the Turkish leader.

The former is synonymous with a more conservative Malay Muslim view of the party's objectives while the Erdogans, who have the blessing of spiritual leader Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat, believe that Islamic principles can complement an equitable multicultural society.

Nizar, although not a member of any faction, clearly shares the sort of moderate views espoused by the Erdogans.

When contacted by The Malaysian Insider, he said that he has not thought about the possibility of contesting for one of the three vice-president posts but should nominations continue to stream in, admitted that he "will have to consider contesting."

Modest, as usual, Nizar preferred to analyse circumstances as an "opportunity for PAS's true colours to emerge" and with Erdogan man Datuk Husam Musa set to take the step up from vice-president to deputy president, the post-June Islamist party could very well be the sort of partner that PKR and DAP can finally be comfortable with.

Husam has so far been reluctant to signal any intent to contest for the No. 2 post but it is understood that like Nizar, he will respect the party's wishes if it decides to push for his candidacy.

Dzulkefly told The Malaysian Insider that he is confident that the party is beginning to take a more pragmatic view of how the party should operate, and step away from pure dogmatism that has in the past stopped it from making the sort of inroads with non-Muslims that it has managed to make in the past year or so.

"Of several candidates considered for Bukit Gantang, eventually Nizar was chosen as he was the most 'winnable' despite our studies showing there would be a reduction of Malay support. But the party understood that what was important was to win, so the party is now able to conceptualise its priorities differently," he said.

Perak DAP chief Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham, who was Nizar's No. 2 in his 11-month-old administration, told The Malaysian Insider that PAS's inclusive policies, if continued and affirmed, would create greater cooperation within Pakatan Rakyat.

"For PAS to be a national party, it must continue with its open attitude," he said, adding that it would quash what he calls Umno's demonisation of PAS as a party of extreme ulamas (religious scholars).

Ngeh's hopes may soon be realised as Nizar's candidacy as vice-president is not the only brow-raising trend in the nominations so far.

While it is accepted that Hadi will retain the presidency uncontested, it appears that his deputy Nasharuddin Mat Isa has not impressed the grassroots.

Out of the three divisions, the ulama leader has only received one nomination, the same as Husam. But with heartland Malay division Temerloh nominating Kedah Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Azizan Abdul Razak instead, Nasharuddin could be in trouble.

Indeed, developments so far will give PAS's Pakatan Rakyat partners some joy. Besides Husam's candidacy for No. 2, the favourites for vice-president are dominated by more moderate voices such as Youth chief Salahuddin Ayub, firebrand vice-president Mohamad Sabu and Nizar.

For those who feel that a strong Pakatan Rakyat is crucial for the political future of Malaysia, the PAS muktamar, and not last month's Umno general assembly, may well be the highlight milestone for 2009.

Comment: I totally agree with this view. He is a bright rising leader of PAS and Pakatan. Anwar is considered as chief of Pakatan and he is responsible to mend the opposition parties, to bring together PAS and DAP. Without him those two will continue quarrel and will never sit together, let alone to plan any political move or take over of government. Observers always say Pakatan Rakyat is only temporal cliche in Malaysian politics..., what happen after Anwar? Who can lock DAP and PAS together in the post-Anwar period? Definitely Not Lim Kit Siang or Haji Hadi. Tuan Guru Nik Aziz too will be difficult for DAP members to accept as the Pakatan leader. They want somebody liberal enough but at the same time acceptable to PAS members. PKR also need somebody moderate in policies and protect the fundamental agreement of the social contract. Nizar is well liked by all races in the Pakatan and I would say he is the answer. Time will tell...

Bila masa agih kuasa, semua menuntut...

MIC timbang keluar dari kabinet
RK Anand Apr 11, 09 4:39pm Malaysiakini.com

MIC sedang menimbang untuk menarik keluar wakil parti itu dalam kabinet baru ekoran banyak lagu isu-isu yang belum diselesaikan, terutama berhubung layanan pentadbiran baru terhadap masyarakat India, kata sumber dalaman parti itu hari ini.

Walaupun senario itu dilihat sukar berlaku, tetapi beliau berkata, MIC bersedia melakukannya bagi menumpukan kepada usaha menyatu padukan masyarakat India terlebih dahulu. "Keputusan itu dijangka dibuat dalam masa terdekat ini, mungkin dalam mesyuarat jawatankuasa pusat MIC yang akan datang lewat bulan ini," katanya.

Bagaimanapun, parti itu akan kekal menganggotai gabungan BN. Sumber tersebut berkata, sungutan utamanya ialah "masyarakat India masih dilayan sebagai rakyat kelas dua, malah seperti kelas tiga di negara ini". Di samping itu, katana, wakil MIC dalam kabinet tidak diberi jawatan menteri kanan walaupun parti itu berulangkali merayu kepada bekas Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi dan Perdana Menteri baru, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak supaya melantik Presiden MIC, Datuk S Samy Vellu menganggotai semula kabinet.

Mengikut tradisinya, MIC akan mengisi jawatan menteri kerja raya. Bagaimanapun ianya berubah selepas pilihanraya umum 8 Mac tahun lalu, apabila Samy Vellu gagal mempertahankan kerusi parlimen Sungai Siput. Menteri tunggal MIC dalam kabinet baru ialah Setiausaha Agungnya, Datuk Dr S Subramaniam yang dilantik semula sebagai menteri sumber manusia.

Parti itu juga diberi dua jawatan timbalan menteri - M Saravanan (Wilayah Persekutuan) dan SK Devamany (Jabatan Perdana Menteri). Kementerian sumber manusia, kata sumber tersebut, dianggap sebagai bukan jawatan kanan dalam kabinet dan MIC merasakan ini tidak mencerminkan status parti sebagai parti komponen ketiga terbesar dalam BN.

Komen: Politik merupakan satu seni serba mungkin & kemungkinan ini kuat didasarkan kepada kepentingan. Dalam kes ini MIC merasa tidak puas hati dengan agihan kerusi kabinet. Kini ia mengeluarkan ancaman. MCA juga telah menyatakan perkara yang sama beberapa hari lepas apabila anggotanya yang menjadi menteri itu merosot.

Dalam hal ini tindakan hati-hati perlu diambil oleh BN. Khairy Jamaludin, Ketua Pemuda UMNO juga tidak terpilih. Pemahaman terhadap lanskap politik Malaysia amat perlu di sini. Era kegemilangan BN dan UMNO khususnya, sudah berakhir. Kedudukannya kini amat berbeza. Peningkatan sokongan kepada Pakatan Rakyat amat mencabar kedudukan BN kini.

Pemimpin Yong Teck Lee dari Sabah telah berpindah. Demikian juga Lee Kah Choon di P. Pulau Pinang. Tun Mahathir dengan selamba pernah menyatakan tindakan bijak mereka itu umpama jumping from a sinking boat. Dalam maksud lain mereka sudah dapat melihat BN umpama perahu yang sedang karam atau perlahan-lahan tenggelam dan dengan itu segera melompat ke perahu lain. Lebih baik pada saat awal ini, kelak jika melompat di peringkat terdesak nanti ia akan dituduh sebagai opportunist atau mementingkan diri semata-mata. Pengguguran tokoh tertentu menyebabkan tokoh tersebut akan menilah 'harga'nya.

Dalam kedudukan lanskap politik Malaysia yang agak seimbang kini harga mereka amat bernilai tinggi. Jika ia merasa boleh laku lagi atau amat diperlukan maka tidak terkejut tindakan melompat parti akan berlaku seperti yang dibayangi oleh MIC. Dalam politik yang masing-masing pihak sanggup menerima pemimpin lawan untuk menambah kerusi keadaan ini amat merbahaya. Hatta yang korup diterima seperti yang terjadi dalam krisis politik Perak. Mereka mahu diimbuhi, diiktiraf dengan kedudukan, jika tidak dengan pangkat dan kedudukan, ia boleh dengan jawatan dan pulangan material. Memang senario ini kelihatan menjijikkan... tetapi itu lah POLITIK!!!

Is party hopping democratic..?

Dilemma over defections
By HARIATI AZIZAN & RASHVINJEET S. BEDI Star Sunday Feb 8, 2009

The political impasse in Perak may have been resolved but it has sparked fears of similar crises in other states and raised questions on the purpose of voting. HOIST on his own petard. That is the saying that comes to mind with the recent political developments in Perak. PKR leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been “caught in his own trap, involved in the danger he meant for others”. The Brewer definition of this phrase could not be more apt.

What Anwar protractedly and publicly dangled – a crossover of Barisan MPs from Sabah to the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) alliance – after the March 8 elections came to nought. But the Barisan, using the same plot and with great stealth, took hold of the Perak state government in the blink of eye. It has certainly been an eventful week for the state that is celebrating its Ruler’s silver jubilee. Ibrahim: ‘When there is a defection, the people feel cheated to a certain degree’ In that short time, the nation witnessed the fall of the PR Government when three elected PR representatives quit their respective political parties to be Independents “friendly” to Barisan. Party-hopping is by no means a new phenomenon in Malaysia as political defections have been witnessed in Sarawak, Kelantan and Sabah over the years with state governments switching hands as a result.

But should elected representatives be allowed to defect or hop to another party? This question is on the lips of many now and then – in the wake of the shocking March 8 general election – when almost immediately, talk of party-hopping and change of party alliances had been rife. Defections are not seen in a sympathetic light by voters. Merdeka Centre’s programme director Ibrahim Suffian says based on feedback the centre has received, most Malaysians – 60-80% of voters – vote for a political party rather than the candidate.

“When there is a defection, the people feel cheated to a certain degree. The majority would be upset, especially if they had voted for that person (involved in the defection). “At the recent Kuala Terengganu by-election, for example, we asked people what the important criteria was for them when voting. Most of them said they looked at the party’s policy and leadership rather than the candidate.” Tanvir Singh, a voter, couldn’t agree more with him. “When we make our selection, the choice is based on the party logo or name, not the candidate’s name or face,” he says.

This accounts for so many unknowns with little or no track record securing seats in the last election. Ibrahim shares that the candidate as a personality would carry more weight with voters who are less ideological or are undecided. “After all, in an election, most people would not know enough about the new candidates but they would know what the party stands for,” says Ibrahim.

Review laws
According to Syed Jamaluddin Syed Noh, acting chairman of election watchdog Malaysians for Free Elections (Mafrel), legally, the people have no say in this matter. “The people have to live with the decision because in this situation, the provision that a government can be formed with a simple majority applies.” It has definitely upset those who voted for PR, making them feel frustrated or betrayed but by law, the decision stands and people have to accept it,” he says.
All that the rakyat (public) can do for now, he says, is to mark it as a lesson learnt and exercise their right to vote carefully in the next elections.

Tunku Abdul Aziz: Was against Anwar’s plans for cross over from the start.
“That is why from day one, Mafrel has pushed for electoral reforms to make the system more democratic. “Our current system may be conducive to defections and buyouts; it is not healthy, so we need to look at how they can be deterred. We also need to review the procedures and processes as well as some legal aspects in our system.” He says another protection for voters is to enact an anti-hopping law.

“If we are going to have all this wheeling and dealing from both sides, we need to enforce a law that can guarantee political stability for the people,” he adds. Former de-facto law minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, a strong advocate of anti-hopping legislation, shares that when he proposed it last March, it was poorly received by parliamentarians from both sides of the political divide. “I know how politicians will be tempted to switch parties by inducement, so that’s why I proposed the anti-hopping law, but no one was interested. I did not get enough support from either side, probably at that time they felt that it would be more beneficial for them not to have such a law. Among the leaders, I remember only Karpal Singh and (Datuk) Nik Aziz supported me.”

One argument that has been used against the anti-hopping law is its contradiction to one’s freedom of association as enshrined in the Federal Constitution; in 1992, the High Court even declared a state anti-hop law unconstitutional on that basis. As Umno’s official lawyer Hafarizam Harun argues, although elected representatives are accountable to their constituents, they also need to stay true to their personal conscience. “When you go into the assembly, you don’t only represent the party and the people, you also represent yourself. So, while we take note of people’s sentiments, we cannot deprive the elected state representatives of their right to freedom of association. I believe that it is the right of the state assemblymen to switch parties if they want to,” he opines.

He says the Perak state representatives did not switch parties but instead declared independence from their old parties. “Then in this case, it is slightly different; you cannot argue that they were immoral or unethical,” he argues, rubbishing allegations that they were induced to leave their respective parties. “How can you say they were given inducements? They did not join BN. If they had joined BN, then it might have been a different matter,” he says. Zaid however strongly believes that Malaysian democracy has not reached the necessary level of maturity to be without an anti-hopping law. “Party-hopping has been a common practice in Malaysia for so long and we cannot guarantee that our candidates have sufficient education or the character and integrity not to be tempted by inducements. “It is different in a mature democracy, you don’t need such a law because you can be confident that we can trust the candidates and their personal conscience and know that they will not easily hop parties when induced with lots of money or other rewards.”He argues that sacrificing such personal freedom is a necessary evil for the country to attain political stability. “No law is perfect, so you have to see which difficult issues you want to address. If it is for political stability, then I think we can sacrifice this personal freedom. And we have done this before – we have restrictions on the freedom of assembly because we want to have public order. We can do it if there is political will for reform,” adds Zaid.

DAP vice-chairman Tunku Abdul Aziz is another personality who has always supported such legislation. He shares that he was against Anwar’s plans for crossing over from the start. “I made my position clear when Anwar Ibrahim started the talk about people crossing over to Pakatan Rakyat. I believe that it is unethical. Secondly, people elected on a certain party ticket owe it to the people who put them there and the party of which they are members,” he says.

Stressing that ethics and moral principles should be observed or the political situation would descend into chaos, as what happened in Sabah in 1994, Abdul Aziz nonetheless concedes that the crux of the problem is that “the concept of morality simply does not work in our political arena.” PKR vice-president R. Sivarasa, however, is not fully against party-hopping. He explains that in the Malaysian context, politicians have no other choice, due to the addition of Article 48(6) into the Federal Constitution in the 1980s, which states that a person who has resigned from the House of Representatives would be barred from taking office for five years.

Double oppression
The Article is believed to have been introduced to deal with the situation of Datuk Shahrir Samad who resigned as an Umno MP but won the subsequent by-election as an independent candidate in 1988. “In other countries where true democracy is held, they will resign from their seat because it was the ethical thing to do. But here, if say you don’t identify with your party and have to cross, it is unavoidable (to hop),” he says. Sivarasa says he opposes the introduction of the anti-hopping law without the removal of the particular clause in the Federal Constitution because it is akin to double oppression. Constitutional law expert Prof Shad Saleem Faruqi meanwhile believes that there are various ways to enact the anti-hopping law without compromising personal liberties.

As he had written in The Star last year, one way of enacting a federal law against defection is by enacting constitutional amendments to the Article 10(2)(c) (freedom of association) and Article 48 (disqualification for membership of Parliament). He also highlighted that party-hopping can cause political instability and collapse of the duly elected government of the day. When interviewed recently on the Perak crisis, he says: “Party-hopping is a despicable activity no matter which party does it. Not only does it bring shame to the political process, it is also a bad way to form a government. It will be a bad precedent if a government is formed by relying on support by defectors.”

»Party hopping is a despicable activity no matter which party does it. Not only does it bring shame to the political process, it is also a bad way to form a government« PROF SHAD SALEEM FARUQI Prof Shad Saleem says he personally favoured a dissolution to let the people decide but concedes that the move would involve a substantial amount of expenditure and disruption at the expense of the people, which he is confident the Sultan had taken into account when making his decision. However, he warns that in the long run, appointing a new government without dissolution will have an adverse impact on the parties involved. “I say with sadness that if a new government is appointed without a dissolution, the new government will win the battle but in the long run, will lose the war as the people will not forgive or forget. “A government that comes to power by wheeling and dealing leaves a bad taste in the mouth. The democratic thing to do is to go back to the people,” he adds.

Where you can or can’t hop
- There are no anti-defection provisions in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, United States or in one of the long established European democracies. Bolivia, Fiji, India, Namibia, Papua New Guinea, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Vanuatu, Zambia and Zimbabwe have anti-defection laws. - In Germany, MPs do not have to resign from parliament if they leave their party. Germany has gone so far as to have written into its basic law that a member is responsible first and foremost to his or her conscience. - In Portugal, members resigning from their parties may remain as independents but cannot join other parties.

- Dr Ahmad Nidzamuddin, political science lecturer in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) says that Sri Lanka enacted a law in 1978 which required those who switched parties to step down from their seats, leaving them vacant until the next general election. Defections happen in UK but mainly on a matter of principle. For example, MP Paul Marsden quit the ruling Labour Party and joined the Liberal Democrats because he opposed the Afghanistan war in 2001.

Comment: Party hopping is legally accepted as pointed by Sivarasa but it is totally morally wrong!!! You denied wishes of the people voted for you. Muddle in Perak case should be blamed to the three frogs who opted to hop.

Was The Sultan Right Constitutionally...?

Worth reading material on the Perak Constitutional Crisis.

Dear folks...

I would usually post news from sources that I have somehow contributed. However, this time is different. I cannot resist sharing with all of you the legal debate on this matter. This piece, in my opinion, is worth reading, esp. those who really interested with the current muddle...

salam..

nidzam

The Perak Crisis - an unsolicited legal opinion (by Malik Imtiaz)
The disagreement between the Terengganu palace and the BN's leadership over the choice of the Menteri Besar last year prompted Malik Imtiaz to write Crisis In Trengganu? What crisis? on his blog, Disquiet. I had taken a differing view than that which was taken by Imtiaz in that article.

Basically I was, and still am, of the opinion that the role of the Rulers in the political arena should be approached with a degree of circumspection. I posted 2 comments to that post and it would not be out of place to reproduce a part of my comments here:

"The notion that the Rulers are a part of check and balance mechanism to the wide powers of the executives is to me, wishful at best. The reality is the Rulers are not part of the administration of the country. The check and balance mechanism embedded into our system (and every democracy with a constitutional monarch) only consists of the executive, legislative and of course, the judiciary (in some Scandinavian countries, an ombudsman is an integral part as well).....

To adopt a literal approach would vest a certain level of absolute power in the Ruler where such power does not exist in the first place. Can we imagine a situation where the Ruler may decide mid-term to change an MB because he thinks that MB does not command the confidence of the majority anymore?

We are now riding the populist wave of a political reform yet unseen before. It is a result of deep rooted anger against the BN government. But lets not allow our emotion to colour our judgement by creating, or allowing to create, a dangerous precedent, a precedent which we all may live to regret later."

The looming constitutional crisis in Perak now underscores my sentiment exactly.

The Power of The Sultan to Appoint the MB
Article 16 of the Perak Constitution says that the Sultan shall appoint the Executive Council ("EC"). He must first appoint as Menteri Besar from the members of the Legislative Assembly who "in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly." Then on the advice of the MB, the Sultan shall appoint other members of the EC.

We stop at this juncture to consider this provision. The Sultan did not have to ensure that the potential MB does command the confidence of the majority. The word "likely" in the above provision gives a certain level of subjectivity to the whole process. And quite how the Sultan was to perform that function is not spelt out.

Article 16 (6) is very important. It says:
"If the MB ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then, unless at his request His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council."

If we could now look at this provision closely. There is no subjectivity here. It does not say, for example, "if the Sultan is of the opinion that the MB ceases to command the confidence of the Assembly", or "if it is likely that the MB has ceased to command the confidence of the Assembly". It says clearly that "if the MB ceases to command".

That means this provision kicks in only and only if, it could be factually proven that the MB has ceased to command the confidence of the Legislative Assembly. In other word, the Sultan is not imbued with the power to make his own subjective judgment over this fact and matter . For this provision to operate, it must be established as a fact that the MB has ceased to command the confidence of the Assembly.

How is that fact established then? In countries practising the Westminster typed democracy, this fact is established with a vote of no confidence on the floor of the Assembly.

Next to be examined is Article 16 (7). It says:
"Subject to Clause (6) a member of the Executive Council other than the MB shall hold office at His Royal Highness' pleasure, but any member of the Council may at any time resign his office."

It is of paramount importance to note that only the MB does not hold office at the pleasure of the Sultan. From a literal reading of this article, it is clear that the Sultan may therefore sack any member of the Executive Council but not the MB.

Can the Sultan Ask the MB to Resign?
With all due respect to HRH the Sultan of Perak, I don't think the Sultan has the power to ask for the resignation of the MB. It has been argued elsewhere that the provision of the Interpretation Act 1948 would give the power to the Sultan to dismiss the MB. While I concede that section 94 of that Act gives the power to dismiss in every instant where a power to appoint exists, it must be remembered that the Interpretation Act does not apply "where there is something in the subject or context inconsistent with or repugnant to the application" of the Interpretation Act.

Where is the context inconsistent with the application of the Interpretation Act here? The answer lies with Article 16 (7) above. It is clear that the MB does not hold office at the pleasure of the Sultan as opposed to the other members of the Assembly. Had it been intended that the Sultan should have the power to dismiss the MB as well as the other members of the Executive Council, Article 16 (7) would not have made such a glaring and clear exception so as to expressly preclude the MB from the operation of that Article.

Excersise of the Sultan's Powers
There are 2 broad categories of powers which the Sultan is vested with. The first type are powers which the Sultan shall act in accordance with the advice of the Executive Council. There is no discretionary power here. Whenever the Sultan is advised to exercise these powers, the Sultan has no choice but to exercise that power in accordance with the advice given.

Secondly there are powers which the Sultan may exercise in his discretion. These powers include: power to appoint the MB, power to withhold his consent to a request for the dissolution of the Assembly. Here lies the problem.

The MB has requested the Sultan to dissolve the Assembly but the Sultan has refused to do so and had asked the MB to resign instead.Was the Sultan Right?

A case law, decided by our Court in 1966 bears important resemblance to the crisis in Perak now. In Stephen Kalong Ningkan v. Tun Abang Haji Openg and Tawi Sli [1966] 2 MLJ 187, the Governor of Sarawak received a letter signed by 21 members of the Council Negri (equivalent to the Legislative Assembly) expressing no confidence in Stephen Kalong Ningkan as the Chief Minister. The Governor then asked Stephen to resign. Stephen refused to resign.

The Governor then declared that Stephen and all the members of the Supreme Council (equivalent to the Executive Council) as having ceased to hold office. A new Chief Minister was then appointed by the Governor. The case ended up in the High Court where among others, a declaration that the purported dismissal of Stephen as the Chief Minister was ultra vires the Constitution and was therefore null and void. The Sarawak Constitution contain provisions which are almost identical to the provisions of the Perak Constitution.

Article 6 (3) provides:
"The Governor shall appoint an Chief Minister a member of the Council Negri who in his judgment in likely to command the confidence of a majority of the members of the Council Negri and shall appoint the other members in accordance with the advice of the Chief Minister from among the members of the Council Negri."

By Article 7, it is provided as follows:
"(1) If the Chief Minister ceases to command the confidence of a majority of the members of the Council Negri, then, unless at his request the Governor dissolves the Council Negri, the Chief Minister shall tender the resignation of the members of the Supreme Council.

(2) A member of the Supreme Council may at any time resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Governor, and a member of the Supreme Council other than the Chief Minister shall also vacate his office if his appointment thereto in revoked by the Governor acting in accordance with the advice of the Chief Minister. (3) Subject to cll (1) and (2), a member of the Supreme Council other than the Chief Minister shall hold office at the Governor's pleasure."

Notice the almost identical provisions. It has to be noted that the Sarawak Constitution also provides, (as do the Perak Constitution) that the Chief Minister does not hold office at the pleasure of the Governor.

The Court held as follows:

i) for Article 7 (1) to kick in, there must be a vote of no confidence from the floor of the Assembly. Mere letters signed by the members of the Assembly expressing no confidence to the Governor was not sufficient.
ii) the Governor had no power to dismiss the Chief Minister under the Constitution.
iii) the purported dismissal of the CM was then ultra vires the Sarawak state Constitution.

What is even more important is the learned Judge's observation in respect of the exercise by the Governor of his discretionary power to appoint a CM and to withhold his consent when there is a request to dissolve the Assembly. This is what His Lordship said:

"A lot has been said about the duty and powers and discretion of the Governor. His paramount duty is to "act in accordance with the advice of the Supreme Council or of a member thereof acting under the general authority of the Council". (Article 10(1). There are two occasions when the Governor has a discretion, that is, when he can act without, or even contrary to, the advice of the Supreme Council.

Those occasions are in the performance of the following functions -

(a) the appointment of a Chief Minister;
(b) the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of the Council Negri.

(Article 10 (2) ). As regards (a), nobody could be so foolish as to suggest that a Governor could appoint a second Chief Minister while there was still one in office. As regards (b), this probably has in mind a situation of splinter parties, as has been the case in France, when a general election could not be expected to show an overall majority for any one party.

In Sarawak, it seems to me that a Chief Minister may advise a dissolution, even though he has not as yet lost the confidence of Council Negri. In such circumstances, the Governor's refusal to dissolve might be conventionally unconstitutional, although not illegal." This is still good law as this decision has never been overturned by a higher Court.

Conclusion
With the greatest of respect to HRH the Sultan of Perak, it would appear that the above case law does not lend support to the actions which have so far been taken in Perak.

I would like to end this post by quoting R.H Hickling from his excellent book, "Malaysian Law" (Professional Law Books Publishers 1988), where he said:

"The advent of constitutional government in Malaysia marked the beginning of the end for the prerogatives of the Rulers. While assiduously reserving these prerogatives by express savings in the state constitutions, the very act of defining rights and powers restrict them. With the advent of formal constitutions government in Johor in 1895, limitations on arbitrary rules set in, and the pattern was set for progress to the modern concept of constitutional government: that is to say, not merely government in accordance with the provisions of the constitution, but government in accordance with the wishes of the elected representatives of the people."

Taken from:

http://art-harun.blogspot.com/2009/02/perak-crisis-unsolicited-legal-opinion.html.

Also worth reading complementing view below.. http://m.themalaysianinsider.com/articles.php?id=18334-perak-speaker-still-in-pakatan-hands

Comment: The most expensive person now is the Speaker, Sivakumar since the BN government has no power to remove him. How in the world can the Perak Dun have a Sidang since the 'majority' is with BN and yet the speaker is from the Pakatan? Interesting to watch though. Definitely dissolving the DUN is the best choice. Unfortunately the BN opted not to. He is prone to this kidnapping plot I am afraid... Lets watch... 15 Feb '09.<---

Trik, manipulasi, hamboran dana dan janji molek masih gagal pikat majoriti

Najib gagal baca amaran awal kekalahan?

HARAKAH DAILY
Khamis 29 Januari 2009 2 Safar 1430 Hijrah
Ahmad Lutfi Othman Mon Jan 19, 09 7:19:32 pm MYT

SEBELUM diisytihar menang pun, penampilan Mohd Abdul Wahid Endut sebagai calon PAS, mewakili Pakatan Rakyat, sudah menempa sejarah tersendiri. Pemilihannya memang tidak dijangka. Namanya dicalonkan di peringkat awal, tetapi khabarnya beliau sendiri menarik diri, untuk memberi laluan kepada tokoh-tokoh lain, dan antara yang disebut-sebut ialah Dr Syed Azman Syed Ahmad Nawawi, Adun Batu Burok yang juga bekas Ahli Parlimen Kuala Terengganu (1999-2004) dan Mustafa Ali, Pesuruhjaya PAS Negeri.

Sejarah dibentuk lagi kemudiannya apabila persepakatan erat Pakatan Rakyat terserlah bermula dari hari penamaan calon, semasa kempen hinggalah hari pembuangan undi. Rasanya inilah kali pertama pimpinan utama DAP, diketuai Lim Kit Siang dan Lim Guan Eng aktif berkampung di kawasan majoriti Melayu, dan lebih menarik ia terletak di Kuala Terengganu.

"Cantiknya ia berlaku di Terengganu"
Apabila turun mengatur strategi dan berkempen bersama, tentulah "yang jauh dapat didekat, yang dekat dapat dimesrakan". Ada dakwaan mengatakan pimpinan PAS Terengganu agak tidak begitu "dekat dan mesra" bukan saja dengan pemimpinan DAP, malah KeADILan.

Sementara kemenangan dengan majoriti tidak terduga Abdul Wahid, iaitu 2,632 undi, disambut gema takbir (dan kemudiannya ratusan anak muda meraikannya di jalan-jalan sekitar bandar), Timbalan Presiden Umno, Najib Razak, yang mengemudi jentera kempen BN pasti terkedu dengan kekalahan bergandanya.

Permatang Pauh mungkin tidak memalukannya tetapi Kuala Terengganu nyata memberi tamparan hebat buat bakal Perdana Menteri, yang dijangka naik takhta Mac nanti.

Permatang Pauh dikenali sebagai kubu kuat Anwar Ibrahim sejak 1982 lagi, terletak pula di negeri Pakatan Rakyat. Sementara Kuala Terengganu milik Umno-BN, di negeri Terengganu yang mana BN menang besar dalam pilihan raya umum ke-12, menghadang ombak tsunami politik yang menghempas Pantai Barat.

Lebih perit buat BN di Kuala Terengganu
Di Permatang Pauh calon BN kekurangan 1,426 undi berbanding pilihan raya 2008 tetapi di Kuala Terengganu, "orang kuat" Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, undi Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh merosot 2,320 berbanding penyandang, Allahyarham Razali Ismail.

Najib diakui bekerja keras sepanjang 11 hari berkempen, menawarkan pelbagai impian, menyogok tawaran, dan mengetuk pintu demi pintu, bagi memastikan momentum kejayaan gemilang Anwar tidak merebak ke Pantai Timur.

Kini reputasi Najib - dan BN yang bakal dipimpinnya - dipercayai tambah gelap memandangkan bagasi sejarah beliau juga begitu membebankannya. Igauan Altantunya Shaariibu masih menghantui Najib hinggakan mereka yang manampal gambar gadis Mongolia itu di Kuala Terengganu pun ditahan polis.

Umno di bawah terajunya nanti dijangka berdepan masalah dalaman lebih parah. Secara umumnya, imej peribadi calon BN, Wan Farid Salleh, yang dikatakan "sombong, tidak mesra, elitis, bersifat bangsawan" boleh menggambarkan imej Umno-BN sekarang.

Malang sekali, Najib dan juga jentera kempen BN tidak pernah berubah; mereka seolah-olah langsung tidak mengambil iktibar pengalaman pahit pilihan raya Mac 2008 yang menyaksikan lima negeri jatuh dan majoriti dua pertiga BN di Parlimen dinafikan.

Seperti ditegaskan sarjana politik Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Prof Madya Ghazali Mayudin, yang menghantar artikelnya kepada saya pada awal pagi 17 Januari, di waktu pusat mengundi baru dibuka: "Strategi dan tindakan BN untuk memenangi hati pengundi di KT menampakkan yang parti itu seakan terperangkap dalam penjara yang dibinanya sendiri. Setelah memenangi puluhan pilihan raya, umum atau kecil, dengan skrip yang sama semenjak merdeka, maka skrip lama ini juga yang digunakan dalam pilihan raya abad ke-21 ini." Maknanya Ghazali menulis artikel itu, yang sudah merumuskan punca kekalahan BN, sebelum pemilih berdaftar membuang undi lagi.

Ramalan sarjana politik terbukti tepat
Bukan Ghazali seorang yang begitu yakin PAS boleh menang, malah beberapa pengkaji dan sarjana politik lain sudah meramalkan begitu. Ketua Program Sains Politik UKM, Prof Madya Dr Mohamad Agus Yusoff, empat hari sebelum mengundi, memaklumkan kepada saya: "Lutfi, pegang cakap-cakap saya ini, PAS boleh menang sehingga majoriti 3,000 undi!" Seorang lagi pensyarah sains politik, Prof Madya Dr Ahmad Nidzamuddin, melalui siaran langsung TV, berdasarkan tinjauannya, juga dengan penuh yakin menjangkakan PAS bakal menang.

Semasa kempen, berdepan masyarakat Tionghua, yang dikira undi penentu, BN terus menakutkan mereka dengan isu Hudud walhal dalam pilihan raya umum lalu, khususnya di Pantai Barat, pengundi Cina dan India tanpa segan silu menyelimuti bendera PAS di tubuh mereka, sambil giat berkempen memenangkan Pakatan Rakyat. Seorang pemimpin muda MCA Cheras, melalui siaran Astro Awani menegaskan, "politik ugut dan gertak" menggunakan isu Hudud sudah tidak berkesan lagi.

Politik "pembangunan dan keselamatan" dengan gaya lama adalah konsep kuno yang tidak lagi sesuai dengan dunia siber dan langit terbuka ini. Benar seperti kata A Kadir Jasin, BN yang sudah terlalu lama berkuasa sudah begitu sukar berubah: "Mereka tetap menggunakan taktik lama yang sama. Memang ada janji untuk melakukan bedah-siasat atas kekalahan Mac 2008 tetapi apabila didapati post-mortem itu menikam pemimpin atasan, ia terus dilupakan. Jadi, tidak hairanlah jika ada ahli Umno sendiri yang mendoakan BN kalah di Kuala Terengganu."

Di pihak Pakatan Rakyat pula, diharap hubungan erat semasa kempen dapat diinstitusikan. Lima negeri Pakatan harus menyerlahkan bentuk kerjasama yang boleh memberi banyak manfaat buat rakyat.

Persefahaman mantap Pakatan
Tidak mudah berdepan ketidak-tentuan ekonomi dan cabaran lain yang lebih sengit dalam waktu terdekat, namun dengan persefahaman pimpinan Pakatan di peringkat pusat dan negeri terbabit, segala kemelut mudah dirongkai.

Lebih menarik, "Pengisytiharan Mentaloon" dikeluarkan pada 18 Mac, sehari selepas pilihan raya kecil Kuala Terengganu, membabitkan semua Menteri Besar dan Ketua Menteri lima negeri Pakatan Rakyat, bertempat di kediaman Menteri Besar Kedah, di Sri Mentaloon, Alor Setar.

Impian rakyat untuk menikmati kehidupan lebih baik di bawah Pakatan begitu tinggi. Segala tawaran dalam manifesto masih ada yang belum tertunai. Masa Umno-BN sudah berlalu.

PAS terbukti dapat melalui ranjau dengan cemerlang sekali. KT bukan sahaja membuka laluan untuk menguasai kembali Terengganu, malah menunjuk jalan lurus ke Putrajaya, insya-Allah.

Dan terbukti penangguhan cetakan Harakah edisi Jumaat, Bil 1408, daripada pagi Sabtu kepada pagi Ahad, bagi menunggu keputusan pilihan raya, adalah langkah tepat! Kami tidak mahu terlewat untuk merakam satu sejarah baru dalam politik Malaysia.

Komen: Terbaca dalam salah satu blog.. kedudukan skor sekarang ialah 3-0. Kedudukan 1-0 semasa Pilihanraya Kecil Permatang Pauh, 2-0 di Kuala Terengganu dan 3-0 apabila Adun Bota keluar dari BN. Sebaiknya YB Nasarudin tidak mengosongkan kerusi Bota seperti yang didesak oleh Menteri Luar. Kelak boleh menjadikan skor 4-0!!!