CHANGING A MENTERI BESAR BY STATUTORY DECLARATION

Since he wants Mukhriz to step down, only his view — and that of his warlords — matter.

Zaid Ibrahim

General elections are expensive affairs that take place every five years. Millions in taxpayers’ money are used to organise the elections in which wakil rakyat are chosen to represent the people until the next election. Why do we do this? Because we want to tell the world that the country is governed with a mandate given by the people.

Malaysia wants to be known as a democracy, so it holds elections. But its Prime Minister does not understand the value of a mandate. When they asked him to step down, he replied, “O, I have a mandate … and I must rule till the next election.” But he had no qualms removing Mukhriz, before Mukhriz’s term ends, for no reason other than to make a point that he is the Emperor.

Kedahans were told, three days before polling day in 2013, that Datuk Seri Mukhriz Mahathir would beMenteri Besar if the party won, which it did — but Mukhriz must have annoyed the Emperor so much that he was asked to vacate the post of Menteri Besar before his term ended.

Mukhriz had to go. “Mandate” applies to Najib and no one else.

All Dato’ Sri Najib Razak needed to do was to get some of his people to gather in a press conference and demand that Mukhriz resign, and as “proof” that Mukhriz no longer had the support of the legislative assembly, some statutory declarations were produced.

Najib no longer considers it important that the people voted BN into the state government with Mukhriz as the Menteri Besar. The idea that Mukhriz were given a mandate from the people was of no concern to Najib. Najib doesn’t think that the views of the rakyat about Mukhriz matters. Since he wants Mukhriz to step down, only his view — and that of his warlords — matter.

The days are long gone where a motion of no confidence in the assembly was the preferred constitutional route to remove an incumbent Menteri Besar. Compliance with constitutional practice by way of a vote in an open and transparent system is a recognition that if we want to alter the mandate, then it should be done through a debate in the Assembly. This is  not something practised under Najib’s “enlightened” administration.

Instead, what’s in vogue are deals behind closed doors followed by hurriedly organised press conferences and bundles of statutory declarations being passed around. Thanks to the new constitutional principle introduced by Najib in the Perak case of 2009 — which ultimately found enthusiastic support amongst the top  judges — the Menteri Besar can now be removed by the Prime Minister (via the monarch, of course) using means other than an open vote in the assembly to determine if the Menteri Besar enjoys majority support.

Now, those BN MBs who keep still and quiet (for they are scared to support Mukhriz,), must remember that what happened to Mukhriz can also happen to them. This new weapon called a statutory declaration will be used against them too. They will wake up one day, and find their  post of MB gone.

We know that a statutory declaration is a convenient means of establishing a simple fact because the format requires little contestation or dispute. If you have lost your identity card or misplaced your car registration card, then by all means use a statutory declaration to get a replacement.

But in matters of public interest, and of great complexity involving issues affecting the positions of elected officials in the country, surely statutory declarations are not appropriate. Using statutory declarations to remove an elected leader is not practised anywhere in modern democracies. In fact, I would not like to see statutory declarations being used to remove Najib from office. I would rather see some courageous men and women in Parliament speak their hearts and vote him out of office; by looking at him in the eye, and explaining to the people the reasons — one by one — why he should resign. Signing some statutory declaration in the dark of night is the way of the coward.

As it is, people make use of statutory declarations for a variety of reasons, and it’s hard to say how genuine some of these sworn statements are. Some change their stories not once but twice (after cash incentives or duress applied), and unless the deponent is allowed to be publicly examined, we will never know the circumstances under which the statements were made.

We will never know what led them to make such a declaration or who prompted them to alter the declaration subsequently. Thus, the use of statutory declarations to remove a political leader is unreliable, unsafe and shows a complete disregard for the democratic wishes of the people.

Najib has shown utter contempt for interests of the people of Kedah — and UMNO members generally — in the way he engineered Mukhriz’s removal. Najib believes that the trick is to humiliate his opponents strongly enough such that they will lose their self-respect and ultimately submit to him completely. These conquered folks then will vote for him forever and ever. I hope this is not what will happen to the Malays.

The Kedah Regency Council must be congratulated for doing the hard work of ascertaining whether Mukhriz had majority support by conducting personal interviews with all members of the assembly, including those from the Opposition.

In future, however, the members of the Council would be better off not spending so much time interviewing politicians. It’s demeaning for a Royal House to try to ascertain what’s in the hearts of politicians.

The Rulers should just direct that, from now on, the removal of any Menteri Besar must be done by way of a motion of no confidence that needs to be debated in the Assembly. It would be far more effective in ascertaining the amount of support that any leader has, if the provisions of the Constitution are followed. That’s what the laws of the state are for. Just because the use of statutory declarations is a convenient tool for Najib, it does not mean its use is convenient to the Malay Rulers.

The motion of no confidence is what the Malay Rulers should insist on, unless they want to spend sleepless nights reading statutory declarations.