And that is why a vote of no confidence cannot be passed against Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, as suggested by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. If that can be done then Dr Mahathir would have been ousted back in 1987 after just six years as Prime Minister.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
(The Malaysian Insider) – Senior lawyer Datuk Dominic Puthucheary said the Dewan Rakyat has failed to play its constitutional role because political parties have taken control of the house and have turned into a ‘Dewan Parti’.
“Representatives to the Dewan Rakyat are elected by voters but the elected have given their loyalty to political leaders and the august body has become a Dewan Parti,” said the 82-year-old who was a one-term Nibong Tebal MP from 1995.
Lawyer R. Kenghadharan said any parliamentarian who was unable to adhere to noble values was a misfit and should vacate office, as he or she was a gross liability to the democratic process.
He said the Dewan Rakyat represented the people’s voice but, unfortunately, there have been considerable efforts to taint the assembly with incompetence and poor leadership which was vigorously abusing the weakening democratic process.
Lawyer Edmond Bon said the constitutional ideal was that elected representatives voted according to their intellect and conscience to be accountable to the people.
“The reality, however, is that they are able to win elections due to support from their parties,” he said, adding that was a reason independent candidates failed to be elected.
Bon said MPs could not act independently like introducing a motion of no-confidence against the leader of the house as the party whip was enforced to maintain discipline.
He said what was articulated by Razaleigh had been advocated by civil society for the removal of the concentration of power within the hands of an individual or select few.
There is an old saying: better late than never. And now what we have been saying for the last five years since 2010 is starting to be echoed by lawyers and constitutional experts.
Yes, back in 2010 when we first launched the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) this was one of the issues we raised as to the reason why we need a civil liberties movement.
The wakil rakyat that we elect to Parliament are not wakil of the rakyat but are wakil of their party. They do not represent the rakyat in Parliament but represent their respective political parties.
And if we want a more robust Parliament where the Members of Parliament actually serve the voters and not just their parties then we will need a few independent Members of Parliament who are not beholden and subservient to their parties.
When the Members of Parliament owe their meal ticket to their parties then it is very difficult for them to worry about the interests of the voters, especially in cases where the voters’ interest does not dovetail with that of their party.
But this was bitterly opposed. Most were of the opinion that only people with undying and undivided party loyalty should be fielded in the general elections. We should not send independent Members of Parliament into Parliament but only those who would support their parties. Independent Members of Parliament are too dangerous to have around lest they do not vote along party lines.
That is well and fine maybe in some situations. But if, say, Umno and PAS both decide to vote in favour of the Kelantan Shariah Bill and if PKR, to avoid controversy and to not be accused of being anti-Islam, tells its Members of Parliament they can vote according to their conscience, what happens now?
Umno and PAS will say you must vote yes. PKR will say vote yes if as a Muslim that is how you feel and you do not want to be the only Muslim seen as anti-Islam. Can any Member of Parliament oppose this party stand and vote the other way?
According to the party rule you either vote based on what the party says or else you will be disciplined and maybe even get suspended or kicked out. So you vote yes even if you think it is wrong and do not agree with it.
There is no such thing as breaking ranks and voting against your party stand.
And that is why a vote of no confidence cannot be passed against Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, as suggested by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. If that can be done then Dr Mahathir would have been ousted back in 1987 after just six years as Prime Minister.
If Barisan Nasional supports Najib then all the Barisan Nasional Members of Parliament must vote against the vote of no confidence in the event an attempt is made to pass one in Parliament.
Just like you cannot ‘personally’ vote in favour of implementing Hudud in Kelantan, you also cannot ‘personally’ vote in support of a vote of no confidence against the Prime Minister.
Of course, you can always announce that you are resigning from your party to become an independent Member of Parliament so now as an ex-member you no longer need to follow what your ex-party wants.
Well, let us see how many dare resign from their party, especially the Ministers, Deputy Ministers, etc., so that they can become independent and support a vote of no confidence against the Prime Minister.
If they do not get the numbers and the no-confidence vote fails they are dead meat. On the other hand if they succeed and Najib dissolves Parliament and calls for fresh elections, these ex-party members will either have to retire from politics, contest as independents, or join the opposition to contest on an opposition ticket.
With only 222 seats in Parliament do you think the opposition would want them? There are not enough seats to go around and there are too many people who want those seats so how to share them with the newly independent, ex-Barisan Nasional candidates? So these people may have to contest as independent candidates and most likely lose their deposits.
Lawak Giler
ReplyDeletehttp://myfunnyvideo.org/