What we need to do is to restore to our 'peoples' representative', our MPs, the freedom to debate and vote according to their conscience and views of their constituency - An end to the them voting as their party or party leaders decide...
I was shocked when PKR's parliamentary whip Johari Abdul, who in the live debate between PKR candidates for party VP position, revealed that the WHIP - i.e. that MPs had to vote according to 'Party Line' still is being used...So, it seems that our Pakatan MPs may really be all 'forced' to debate and vote according to 'Party LIne'...Should the 'Party Whip' system be abolished?
Without Whips, individual Members of Parliament would consider each question/issue according to the strength of the argument, which would be presented clearly in debate. Every vote would he carried or lost on its own merits..
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM - Abolish the 'WHIP' or 'Party Line' orders to Pakatan Harapan Members of Parliament. UMNO-BN practiced this, where BN MPs were not allowed to support arguements made by Opposition, or vote against government(BN) proposed Bills. This means that there will not be a free debate and discussion in Parliament, and NO free vote according to conscience and principles by MPs...
PKR's parliamentary whip Johari Abdul Whipping has only one purpose: to bully MPs into voting for things they don't agree with or don't believe in. Whipping has involved blackmail, verbal intimidation, sexual harassment and physical aggression. - Whipping, Bullying, Death of Conscience - Truth about Westminster
END RESULT - No real 'discussion' and 'debate' - for what is the use for the MPs on the other side will not even listen and consider whether to accept - which may lead to a change in position.
They are bound to follow 'PARTY LINE' ...not even what their own constituents want or prefer...
Hence, the 'Wakil Rakyat'(People's Representative) chosen by the people seem to 'transform' into becoming Party Representatives...they have to follow 'Party Line'...
The 'WHIP' will tell you how to vote and you must vote that way (even if you believe it may be wrong or not in the best interest of the people)..
Whipping therefore destroys integrity by definition, and invites corruption. Giving way to a severe whipping involves the death of conscience, sacrificed on the high altar of ambition. Whipping encourages mob rule, the end of free speech in debate, and and of free voting. The term itself is unhelpful, and is related to the 'whippers-in' of dogs in fox hunting.
The 'WHIP' system makes MPs useless, for there is little or no use for the people to LOBBY MPs ...[To bring about changes, it seems we need to lobby party leaders...and possibly leaders alone. Do the Pakatan MPs even have a chance to debate among themselves before they come a decision on an issue?]
There may be justification in using the Party Whip system for very very important voles - like the passing of Financial Bills(which determine government income and spending)...but for all other matters, RESTORE FREEDOM TO MPs TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES AND ACT ACCORDING TO THEIR VALUES, PRINCIPLES, CONSCIENCE AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT WHAT THEIR CONSTITUENTS WANT..
Are the Pakatan Harapan party worried about their own MPs - that they will not do the right thing? Are they worried that they may not have the correct values and principles...or that they may not be too 'smart' to do the right thing ...or maybe, they may be influenced by the Opposition. Well, that vetting should have been done when the candidates were chosen by the respective parties. What really were these considerations, I wonder? Was it simply just loyalty to particular leaders - or was it truly based on history of actions, values and principles..
We fight for freedom of expression, freedom of opinion...but then it is sad that this very FREEDOMs are denied to our MPs...
NOW, people need to know how their MPs voted - so essential for every vote, that information is provided on who voted 'YES', who voted 'No' and who 'abstained' - this is CRUCIAL because then the people will know exactly which MP may need to be lobbied so that they may change their position on a particular issue...so this vote based on how loud the voice need to be done away...We need TRANSPARENCY AS TO WHO VOTED AND HOW...
Of course, we need to also know which MP was absent from Parliament ...and maybe even the reasons, if any..MPs should be full-timers...
One also need to question, whether political parties practice DEMOCRACY, or in fact some form of 'feudalism - total loyalty to President?' or a 'dictatorship of certain leaders'.
With the upcoming PKR leadership, it is sad to see some candidate identifying themselves as 'Anwar loyalist' - because in a democracy, a member is always free to disagree with any leader...and is also free to lobby an opposing view...or even be willing to go against an leader - People should act according to values and principles - and not be 'blindly loyal' to any leader. If a leader does/says something good, we may support - but when a leader does something(or says something wrong), then we should oppose and voice out. Anwar recently talked about emphasizing on more 'Malay' rights - but alas, there was not much voices that had a different view...Anwar Ibrahim - 'Malay Malaysian Rights' Do Not Exist? Only 'Quotas'? EXPLAIN please...
Malaysia wants greater democracy - so, let us return freedom of expression, opinion and also vote to our MPs ...stop using the 'WHIP' and stop orders of vote according 'Party line'... safe for maybe the most important Bills like Financial Bills/Budget, etc
If there is NO CHANGE, then Parliament will stay the same as during the UMNO-BN times...we do not want that.
PKR's parliamentary whip Johari Abdul, during his Astro Awani debate, suggested having Parliamentary committees made up of MPs from both sides to debate Bills, before they are tabled in Parliament - He misses the point because what we need is real HONEST debate of quality involving all MPs...maybe the word 'debate' should be replaced with the word 'discussion'. In a debate, the proposer and the opposition 'stick' to their position throughout ...and it is the audience, after listening to both sides make a decision. In parliament, the 'debate mentality' must go - giving MPs the option of even accepting some views of the Opposing side...weighing it, which may lead to a change of mind and position..which may affect the vote.
REFORMASI - yes, we have to abandon 'bad' parliamentary culture ...and take in new culture, a culture of respect, a culture of listening to the MPs from even the other side....
No comments:
Post a Comment