Mind your language

 

So, legally, a Member of Parliament cannot resign his or her seat and re-contest that seat in a by-election. This means that issue first needs to be addressed. And then we need to amend/abrogate the Article in the Constitution that guarantees all Malaysians freedom of association. You will be denied freedom of association once you get elected into office.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

First please read Chief Minister of Penang Lim Guan Eng’s press statement below. I have not edited or amended it because I want you to read it as it is.

It looks like someone had translated this statement into English from the original Chinese version. Since this press release carries the Chief Minister’s name there should be a higher standard of language used. The grammar and sentence structure should be as flawless as possible and words or phrases such as ‘political frogs’ should be avoided.

Name-calling cheapens the message. If we indulge in name-calling where do we draw the line? Mahathir al Mamak. Anwar al Jubur. Khalid (Ibrahim) al Lembik. Najib al Tantuya. Ibrahim (Ali) al Katak. Hee al Camry.

Can you see that the list of ‘names’ we can attach to various Malaysian personalities is endless? You only need to allow your imagination to run wild and Malaysians certainly have a world-class imagination when it comes to giving people ‘names’. I bet the comments below are going to be flooded with some very creative and imaginative ‘names’ of people you love to hate, me included.

Nevertheless, I am giving Guan Eng the benefit of the doubt and will assume that his aides and speechwriters would usually prepare his press statements. I am sure Guan Eng is too busy to sit down with pen and paper and spend hours writing all these statements. Guan Eng has to review the quality of his staff and outsource some of this work if necessary in the interest of maintaining a higher standard.

One of the criteria of a good speechwriter would be the research required. The statements must not only be consistent with earlier statements and the party stand but they must also be consistent with the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, the State Constitution, convention, tradition, cultural norms, religious sensitivities, sentiments and whatnot.

There are so many things to consider in making a statement because in this age of the information revolution people will remember what you said even 30 or 40 years ago. So you cannot make a faux pas and get away with it. It will come back to haunt you later. And the ‘I have been misquoted’ excuse no longer works, as many people have discovered.

I can afford to ignore all these ‘pitfalls’ and write ‘no holds barred’. I do not need for people to like or love me because I will not be contesting the election and, therefore, do not need your votes. The same can’t be said for Guan Eng. Public perception and public support is very crucial in Guan Eng’s case. This will determine whether he wins or loses the election.

Now, before you go off tangent and start saying that this is a Guan Eng bashing article, please note for the record that Guan Eng is one of my more favourite politicians. I actually went to Penang back in 2008 to help campaign for him. I did not do that for the other Pakatan Rakyat politicians other than Ronnie Liu and Nurul Izzah Anwar (and the proof is all on YouTube if you care to do a Google search).

Nazri Aziz made a statement in Parliament today saying that Malaysia is neither a Secular State nor an Islamic State. And the reason Nazri said this, according to him, is because Malaysia’s Constitution is ‘silent’ on the matter and makes no mention of it.

I find that politicians will quote the Constitution when it suits them and if it does not then they will quote the Qur’an, the Hadith, the Sunnah, the Social Contract, the Merdeka Agreement, the 18-Point Agreement, the 20-Point Agreement, the New Economic Policy, the Election Manifesto, the Reid Commission, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and whatnot.

If Nazri wants to follow the Constitution then the Constitution is also silent on the matter of the race and religion of the Prime Minister. Legally, Lim Guan Eng can become the Prime Minister of Malaysia. But Guan Eng cannot become the Prime Minister even though legally, according to the Constitution, he can. And we know why he cannot and also know that it has nothing to do with the Constitution.

Basically, politicians will make a statement and then they will find the justification for that statement. And most times they will contradict themselves from one statement to another. And if they fail to find the right justification they can always use convention, tradition, cultural norms, religious sensitivities, sentiments, etc., as the excuse to justify what they say.

So which ‘guideline’ do we follow then? The Constitution, the Qur’an, the Hadith, the Sunnah, the Social Contract, the Merdeka Agreement, the 18-Point Agreement, the 20-Point Agreement, the New Economic Policy, the Election Manifesto, the Reid Commission, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, convention, tradition, cultural norms, religious sensitivities, sentiments, the powers of the Minister, or what?

We must note that each of those various ‘guidelines’ may contradict one other. So, when yesterday we used one, today we use another, and tomorrow we use yet another, this means we are contradicting ourselves.

Legally, when you vote for someone, whom are you voting for? At the back of your mind you may be voting for the party rather than the candidate. That may be what you are subconsciously doing. But I am asking: legally, whom do you vote for?

When a Member of Parliament stands up in Parliament, the Speaker will address you as, say, “Ahli (Member)dari Lembah Pantai”. The Speaker does not address you as “Ahli dari PKR” or “Ahli dari Pakatan Rakyat”. So you are the wakil or ahli from Lembah Pantai. That is your ‘legal status’. Which party you are from is not the issue. Hence even if you change parties that does not affect your Parliament status.

Now, if we want whoever changes parties to resign (by law) and re-contest the seat in a by-election, we will first need to amend the law that bars someone who resigns from re-contesting for a period of five years.

Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail resigned her Permatang Pauh seat in mid-2008. That means she cannot contest any Parliament seat until at least mid-2013. And that also means she will have to give the coming general election a miss, unless she decides to contest a state seat instead.

So, legally, a Member of Parliament cannot resign his or her seat and re-contest that seat in a by-election. This means that issue first needs to be addressed. And then we need to amend/abrogate the Article in the Constitution that guarantees all Malaysians freedom of association. You will be denied freedom of association once you get elected into office.

It also must be made clear that if you get elected into office you are not Wakil Rakyat but Wakil Parti. And to make sure this is clear, the Speaker must address the Members of Parliament as, say, “Ahli dari PKR” and not “Ahli dari Lembah Pantai”.

Can you see the changes that will be required? It is not merely a simple matter of amending a few words in the State Constitution. A paradigm shift will be required including reconditioning the minds of the voters and the minds of those people who the voters vote into office.

Okay, back to Nazri’s statement today. Nazri is using the Constitution as his guide and his argument is that Malaysia is neither a Secular State nor an Islamic State. So what are we then?

For sure Malaysia is not a Republic because we are a Constitutional Monarchy. And the nine State Rulers are Heads of Islam in their respective states while His Majesty the Agong is Head of Islam for the Federation (plus the four states that do not have Rulers and instead have Governors).

What powers do the Rulers have as Head of Islam? For example, say, Their Highnesses the Sultans of Kelantan and Terengganu want to implement Hudud in their respective states since these two State Assemblies have already approved it years ago. Can this be done?

Nazri would say ‘no’ because Parliament first needs to approve these laws. And since Parliament has not approved it (or has rejected it) then it can’t be done. New laws or amendments to old laws need to be approved by Parliament.

But then is Islam a State matter under the charge of the Rulers or a Federal matter under the charge of Parliament? Ah, Nazri will argue, but Hudud is a legal matter, not a religious matter. So the Federal government and not the State governments have authority over this matter.

Okay, but then apostasy (leaving Islam), drinking/selling of liquor, adultery, illicit sex (sex outside marriage),khalwat (close proximity), etc., are also religious issues. And they are also legal issues. Each state has its own laws and its own forms of punishment for these ‘crimes’. And they differ from one state to another.

We must also remember that although, officially, there are no Hudud laws in Malaysia, those crimes I mentioned above come under Hudud. Hence we DO have Hudud in Malaysia. The only thing is we do not call them Hudud. It is ‘silent’ as to what they are. So, for purposes of giving them a name, we call them Shariah laws.

But Shariah laws are a collection of laws. And one of these collections of laws under the Shariah is Hudud. So what Malaysia has done is it has allowed the implementation of (part of) Hudud as long as you call them Shariah laws and not Hudud laws. You can implement Hudud laws but do not label them as Hudud although they are in reality Hudud laws.

It is like the issue of usury or riba’. In Islam, riba’ is haram (forbidden). So don’t call it riba’. Call it faedah(benefit/interest) or keuntungan (profit/gain). Then it is no longer haram. It is halal (kosher).

Sex outside marriage (zina) is also haram. So don’t call it zina. Call it mut’a (temporary marriage). You get married for a couple of hours just for sex so it is no longer zina and hence not haram. After the sex you ‘divorce’.

Can we take this further? Say you have a bad cough. You then get the doctor (a Muslim doctor if need be) to say that you need some brandy to get rid of your cough. So, for health reasons, you can drink brandy and it is no longer haram. You don’t call it arak. You call it ubat.

Yes, then we can issue a fatwah concerning ‘defending’ Islam and then blow up a school bus with 50 Jewish children inside it. It is not called murder any longer. It is called jihad.

Can you see there is no limit to what we can do when we twist and turn to suit our agenda? And can you also see why Malaysians in general and Malays-Muslims in particular are a very confused lot? They contradict themselves and make statements to suit their objective even though these statements do not make sense.

One day they scream about freedom of this, that or the other. The next day they make a statement that violates all these freedoms. The issue of Islam and the rules of Islam is one case in point. Do we arrest and then jail, cane, fine, tickle, torture, slap, fondle, spank or punch a Muslim who is caught drinking liquor? Furthermore, do we just punish the offender or also the person/establishment that ‘collaborated’ in the ‘crime’?

When you allow prostitution in your massage parlour, not only the prostitutes but also the massage parlour owner will be punished. If your pub employs Muslim staff and they sell beer to Muslims, not only the Muslim customer will be punished. The Muslim staff and the pub owner will face punishment as well.

Is this the law? Yes, according to some states, but not according to the Federal government -- or else the government-owned establishments and GLCs will also face punishment. But then they do not face punishment, do they?

So it appears like this is a State criminal law and not a Federal criminal law. People can face criminal action in some states. And this is Hudud although not called Hudud. Hence it appears like the States can by-pass or ignore Parliament if they wish to do so. But then the Federal government says that the States cannot implement or amend laws without the approval of Parliament.

Aiyah! Pening kepala! Yang mana yang betul ni?

Okay, so can Penang introduce laws or amend laws that make party-hopping a crime? Do they need Parliament’s approval or an amendment to the Federal Constitution for this? And while on that subject, can Penang then also pass a law that DOES NOT make it a crime for Muslims to drink beer?

And if not, why not? Is it because His Majesty the Agong and not the Penang State government is the authority over Islam? And if that is the case then can His Majesty the Agong introduce Hudud in Penang whether the Penang State Government and/or DAP/Pakatan Rakyat agrees or not?

Yes, confusing, is it not? Sometimes the Minister has sole authority. Sometimes the Cabinet is the authority. Sometimes the Menteri Besar/Chief Minister has authority. Sometimes the State EXCO has authority. Sometimes Parliament has authority. Sometimes the EXCO Member has authority. Sometimes the Ruler has authority. Sometimes the Mufti has authority. Sometimes the Religious Department has authority. Sometimes the Attorney-General has authority. Sometimes the IGP has authority. Sometimes the OCDP has authority. Sometimes the CPO has authority. Sometimes the court is the authority.

And sometimes the dogcatcher is the final authority as to whether to kill the stray dogs by drowning or send them to a dog’s home.

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

Lim Guan Eng’s Press Release today

The PR state government will not be deterred by BN’s support for the culture of political frogs but is determined to table a historic constitutional amendment to push through an anti-hopping law in the Penang state assembly meeting on 1 November 2012. The State Legal Advisor has been tasked with the necessary process of gazetting the proposed constitutional amendment.

Any amendment to the Penang state constitution requires a 2/3 majority and PR has the required numbers by holding 29 out of the 40 seats. All 3 parties in Penang PR of PAS, PKR and DAP have also supported the proposed constitutional amendment requiring State Assembly members who jump or change their party affiliation to resign and re-contest in a by-election.

BN and MCA have taken the opportunity to hit out at the Penang state government at yesterday’s MCA Annual General Assembly by dramatically labelling the proposed anti-hopping law as unconstitutional and that it will even creating a constitutional crisis that will be the very foundation of the Federal Constitution and the nation at risk. The Penang state government believes that the anti-hopping law should be within the Federal Constitution for 3 principal reasons.

One, it respects the democratic mandate of the people being kingmakers by allowing their constituents to either support or reject the decision of their elected representatives to hop from one party to another. As parliamentary democracy is the basis of our Federal Constitution, the anti-hopping law by reinforcing its democratic character will only serve to strengthen the Federal Constitution.

Two, the anti-hopping law does not infringe on a person’s right of freedom of association as he or she can join any party subject to a renewal of mandate by the constituents. Finally this will also ensure the practice of political accountability as well as principled values and public integrity in Penang, where elected representatives can not be traded like a commodity at the highest price.

BN and MCA’s condemnation of Penang PR’s anti-hopping laws provides a stark difference between BN’s focus on party interests and personalities as compared to PR emphasis on policies and people.

Lim Guan Eng