I'm writing this post just to share my point of view regarding this recent Perak fiasco. Indeed, democracy in this country is getting better, meaning to say the developments, or for some, is getting worse as well. No one prefer to live in a country or state where you have a frequent change of government, to me frequent means, today you have a government selected by electorate and tomorrow you have a different government, for various reasons, which to me very obvious.
In any democratic country the most supreme is the people, meaning everything, structures, systems, and even constitutions exist because their purpose is to serve the people. Looking at Malaysia, the constitution says that Malaysia is a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarcy country. So, here, we can infer that democracy must be subject to restrictions as provided in the rules of having a parliamentry democracy.
One simple example to illustrate this is by looking at how the federal government is established. It is not neccesaary for them to have the popular support of the people, enough that they rule majority constituencies that provide seats in the house of parliament. Barisan Nasional, for long years have ruled this country by not having a popular vote but by concuering majority of the parliamentary seats, with most, of small difference of votes to the opposition.
How does a popular democracy works? Well, when the head of executive or government is directly selected by the people not by the consideration of having the majority seats in house of parliament. This is one of those, to me, a restriction towards the notion of democracy. As you can see, the mojarity rules in democracy, but by this rule, the less majority rules by not having the support of the majority, interesting isn't it?
On Perak, I believe that the people are of the utmost entity of the country that should be heard, aside from that the laws, specifically the constitution must also be respected, without prejudice, in order for us to have stability in this country. Despite, in law, the three ADUNs that hopped to Barisan Nasional, by supporting them to form a government, that they are justified in doing so, as according to a case on anti-hopping law in Kelantan, still, in principle they are not justified.
They are two matters that we have to balance here. One, that assemblyman are selected to represent the people, they are conferred with this burden to decide for the people of what is best for the people, as that is the main purpose of their selection. Two, that people haved voted an assemblyman according to the party which he represents, as people decide who should be their government and of that reason it is quite absolute that they don't expect the assemblyman to decide to hopp.
Here I prefer the second point, simply because, in Malaysia, the assemblyman that we have is not good enough for them to be regarded as chosen based on thier characteristics. To be clear, my benchmark here is Shahrir Samad, he resigned from the assembly to contest as a free candidate as he had a disagreement with the government, he won, he was one of that was selected on his own account. Malaysians, particularly those candidates for election are not fit to attain this benchmark, so, the people in this country make selection based on parties available in election.
When you have all of these, how can you say that you are justified in deciding for the people's best to hopp and support another party to form a government?
On the law, specifically the constitution, I said earlier that should always be respected. Indeed, but what happen when you have a question that need interpretation of any clause of the constitution? Meaning both litigating parties are on the balance to be decided on thier behalf. At one hand, you can choose whether to live with the principles of democracy by strictly applying the rules in parliamentary democracy, which to me were established hundred of years before us and practiced until today or you about to ignore that by saying that the Rulers should prevail, instead of the people?
So, it seems to me, in Perak, and to the extent of the appeal court, the judges have more belief of the constitutional monarch supremacy rather than what should have been supreme, above all else, that is democracy. One after another, the democractic principles are fading or declared to be overcomed by some greater elements of a certain country.
The people, have seen this, if they do nothing to change this government and to return the position to how it should have been, I can say that Malaysians are stupid, because that they are blind about democracy, and I am not really sure, of the majority composititon, what do they fear really, all are equally equipped by God with brain, intelligence, hands and legs, strong body and etc...
What is there to fear fellow Malaysians or should I be specific, 'fellow brothers and sisters'?
In any democratic country the most supreme is the people, meaning everything, structures, systems, and even constitutions exist because their purpose is to serve the people. Looking at Malaysia, the constitution says that Malaysia is a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarcy country. So, here, we can infer that democracy must be subject to restrictions as provided in the rules of having a parliamentry democracy.
One simple example to illustrate this is by looking at how the federal government is established. It is not neccesaary for them to have the popular support of the people, enough that they rule majority constituencies that provide seats in the house of parliament. Barisan Nasional, for long years have ruled this country by not having a popular vote but by concuering majority of the parliamentary seats, with most, of small difference of votes to the opposition.
How does a popular democracy works? Well, when the head of executive or government is directly selected by the people not by the consideration of having the majority seats in house of parliament. This is one of those, to me, a restriction towards the notion of democracy. As you can see, the mojarity rules in democracy, but by this rule, the less majority rules by not having the support of the majority, interesting isn't it?
On Perak, I believe that the people are of the utmost entity of the country that should be heard, aside from that the laws, specifically the constitution must also be respected, without prejudice, in order for us to have stability in this country. Despite, in law, the three ADUNs that hopped to Barisan Nasional, by supporting them to form a government, that they are justified in doing so, as according to a case on anti-hopping law in Kelantan, still, in principle they are not justified.
They are two matters that we have to balance here. One, that assemblyman are selected to represent the people, they are conferred with this burden to decide for the people of what is best for the people, as that is the main purpose of their selection. Two, that people haved voted an assemblyman according to the party which he represents, as people decide who should be their government and of that reason it is quite absolute that they don't expect the assemblyman to decide to hopp.
Here I prefer the second point, simply because, in Malaysia, the assemblyman that we have is not good enough for them to be regarded as chosen based on thier characteristics. To be clear, my benchmark here is Shahrir Samad, he resigned from the assembly to contest as a free candidate as he had a disagreement with the government, he won, he was one of that was selected on his own account. Malaysians, particularly those candidates for election are not fit to attain this benchmark, so, the people in this country make selection based on parties available in election.
When you have all of these, how can you say that you are justified in deciding for the people's best to hopp and support another party to form a government?
On the law, specifically the constitution, I said earlier that should always be respected. Indeed, but what happen when you have a question that need interpretation of any clause of the constitution? Meaning both litigating parties are on the balance to be decided on thier behalf. At one hand, you can choose whether to live with the principles of democracy by strictly applying the rules in parliamentary democracy, which to me were established hundred of years before us and practiced until today or you about to ignore that by saying that the Rulers should prevail, instead of the people?
So, it seems to me, in Perak, and to the extent of the appeal court, the judges have more belief of the constitutional monarch supremacy rather than what should have been supreme, above all else, that is democracy. One after another, the democractic principles are fading or declared to be overcomed by some greater elements of a certain country.
The people, have seen this, if they do nothing to change this government and to return the position to how it should have been, I can say that Malaysians are stupid, because that they are blind about democracy, and I am not really sure, of the majority composititon, what do they fear really, all are equally equipped by God with brain, intelligence, hands and legs, strong body and etc...
What is there to fear fellow Malaysians or should I be specific, 'fellow brothers and sisters'?
No comments:
Post a Comment