This is what I want in a government

As far as I am concerned, I am not bothered whether the Malaysian Parliament comprises of 222 MPs or 89 opposition MPs and 133 government MPs. To me, all 222 MPs are representatives of the people who have been voted into office by the people. Hence they answer to the people and not to their respective parties.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Yesterday, I had expected UK’s Parliament to vote in favour of military action against Syria. I had expected that mainly because this is what the US wants and what the US wants the US usually gets and Britain will always support what the US wants.

It looks like this did not happen after all. The UK Parliament voted 285 versus 272 against military action. And some Members of Parliament from the Prime Minister’s own party voted against him.

"Britain will not be involved in any military action," a spokesman for Cameron's Downing Street office confirmed. Cameron, in turn, told Parliament, "It is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the government will act accordingly."

And that is the key phrase here: reflecting the views of the British people.

And is this not what I have always been talking about? The Malaysian Parliament comprises of 222 Members of Parliament whom we call ‘Wakil Rakyat’. ‘Wakil Rakyat’ directly translates to ‘the people’s representatives’. Hence the 222 Malaysian MPs are the representatives of the voters and not the representatives of their respective parties.

Is this so difficult to understand?

As far as I am concerned, I am not bothered whether the Malaysian Parliament comprises of 222 MPs or 89 opposition MPs and 133 government MPs. To me, all 222 MPs are representatives of the people who have been voted into office by the people. Hence they answer to the people and not to their respective parties.

Hence I am critical of Malaysian MPs. I am equally critical of the 89 opposition MPs as well as the 133 government MPs. To me, it matters not whether they are opposition members or members of the ruling party. In Parliament, they represent the people and not their parties.

Let what happened in the UK yesterday be the yardstick we use in evaluating our 222 Malaysian MPs. The message we must send our Malaysian MPs is that in Parliament they are our voice. And only our voice is what matters.

As what we used to say back in the days of the Reformasi Movement 15 years ago: suara rakyat, suara keramat. And that means the people’s voice is sacred. And if our 222 MPs do not understand this then they do not deserve our support.

As what Cameron said, "It is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the government will act accordingly."

Will I ever see the day when Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak will say, “It is clear to me that the Malaysian parliament, reflecting the views of the Malaysian people, does not want to see (fill in the blanks here). I get that, and the government will act accordingly."

*******************************************

British MPs reject military intervention in Syria

By a 285 to 272 margin British MPs rejected the government’s motion to support in principle military action against Syria. Cameron faced strong resistance from the opposition Labour party and many members of his own Conservative party.

(AFP) - LONDON: British lawmakers voted against military action in Syria on Thursday in a stunning defeat for Prime Minister David Cameron.

The government was defeated by just 13 votes in the House of Commons in its bid for a "strong humanitarian response" to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime.

After the result, Cameron told lawmakers: "It is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action.”

"I get that, and the government will act accordingly."

The defeat for the government raises the prospects that the United States could act alone against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which it blames for horrific poison gas attacks that are believed to have killed hundreds of people in the suburbs of Damascus last week.

"Britain will not be involved in any military action," a spokesman for Cameron's Downing Street office confirmed.

Seven hours of impassioned debate in the House of Commons had revealed deep divisions over whether military strikes against the Assad regime would deter the further use of chemical weapons, or simply make the conflict worse.

Cameron had made the case for targeted strikes, insisting that Britain could not stand idle in the face of "one of the most abhorrent uses of chemical weapons in a century".

"If nothing is done, it will conclude that it can use these weapons again and again, and on a larger scale, and with impunity," he had told parliament.

But he faced strong resistance from the opposition Labour party and many members of his own Conservative party, who expressed fear that Britain was rushing to a war without conclusive evidence that Assad had gassed his own people.

Cameron admitted there could not be "100 percent certainty" about who had committed the attack, but said it was "beyond doubt" that the regime was responsible.

Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee released evidence on Thursday saying that certain chemical weapons had undoubtedly been used on August 21 and that more than 300 people had been killed.

It was "highly likely" that the Syrian government was responsible, it added.

The regime has denied it committed the attack, which it blames on rebel forces.

Britain's Labor party had proposed an alternative motion seeking "compelling" evidence that the regime carried out the attack before committing to any form of military action, but this too was defeated.

MPs had been recalled from their summer break for the emergency debate, which saw the government's motion defeated by 285 votes to 272.

Some of Cameron's own Conservatives voted against the motion.

John Baron, a prominent sceptic Conservative, had told a packed chamber that he was "unconvinced" by Cameron's arguments.

"We need more answers," he said.

"Committing to military intervention, potentially committing soldiers to war is one of the most serious - if not the most serious - decisions this house can make, and we need to base it on firm evidence not speculation."

The spectre of the Iraq war came up many times during the long hours of debate.

In 2003, the British parliament gave to go-ahead for then prime minister Tony Blair to join the US-led invasion of Iraq on the basis of allegations that dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

The weapons never materialized and Britain became embroiled in the war for years.

But Cameron insisted: "This is not like Iraq.

"What we are seeing in Syria is fundamentally different."

The defeat, caused in part by a rebellion from his own party, will severely shake Cameron's authority.

In a humiliating climbdown, he had already been forced to agree late Wednesday that Britain would not take part in any military strikes before United Nations inspectors report back from the site of the attack - meaning a second vote, possibly next week, would have been necessary.

Opinion polls suggest that the British public are strongly against involvement in military strikes against Syria.

A YouGov poll for The Times found that support for firing missiles against military sites in Syria had dropped on Wednesday to 22 percent, from 25 percent on Tuesday, while opposition grew from 50 percent to 51 percent.

Britain had dispatched six Typhoon fighter jets to its Akrotiri base on Cyprus as a "protective measure" on Thursday, although the defence ministry said the planes would not take part in any direct military action.