BERSIH(The Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections) recent media statement appears to endorse the idea of a requirement that Opposition Members of Parliament should sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the government before they receive allocations of Constituency Development Funds, and that I cannot agree.
In addition, the draft MoU would require opposition MPs not to challenge the position of the prime minister until the end of the current parliamentary term and to pledge not to speak out on issues that fall under the so-called 3Rs - race, religion and royalty.
There should be no need for Opposition MPs to sign any MOU or Agreement with the government, before they receive EQUAL Constituency Funds. More so, if such MOUs includes a condition, directly or indirectly, an agreement that they will not cause the removal of the sitting government of PM Anwar Ibrahim before the next General Elections.
This is a VIOLATION of Malaysia's Federal Constitution - an attempt to deprive the right of a Member of Parliament to get rid of a sitting Prime Minister if he/she no longer has confidence that he/she, in this case Anwar Ibrahim, should remain as Prime Minister.
Art 43 Federal Constitution - Cabinet
... (4) If the Prime Minister ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House of Representatives, then, unless at his request the Yang di-Pertuan Agong dissolves Parliament, the Prime Minister shall tender the resignation of the Cabinet.
It is the DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY of every single Member of Parliament - to decide for the best interest of Malaysia and all Malaysians WHO shall be the Prime Minister, and who shall be removed as Prime Minister. After all, Malaysians never chose Anwar Ibrahim to be the Prime Minister - Anwar Ibrahim is Prime Minister only because the majority of MPs have confidence that Anwar Ibrahim should be the Prime Minister,and when Anwar loses the confidence of the majority - he will no longer be the Prime Minister. ... the Prime Minister shall tender the resignation of the Cabinet.
The MPs, individually, in fact decides on who shall be the Government(the Executive) - for it is the Prime Minister that picks and chooses his CABINET(Ministers, Deputy Ministers, etc) - and, as such, MPs' right on deciding or removing PM shall not be 'jeopardised' in any way - be it MOUs between government and Opposition, Agreements with political parties that may 'force' MPs to follow party positions rather than their individual positions, Agreements(even laws) that prevent MPs their FREE CHOICE on who the Prime Minister should be or should be removed, etc.
Likewise, the offer of money and additional positions(with power and monies) to MPs, be it positions in Cabinet or in some other GLCs or agencies should be ended. Some perceive that the purpose maybe to just secure the position of the Prime Minister(or government) - thus causing MPs to not be FREE to exercise their free choice on determining who shall be PM(or whether the PM should be removed).
In Thailand recently, Thailand's Constitutional Court removed Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin
Judge Punya Udchachon said in reading the court's judgment. Punya said that Srettha must have known about lawyer Pichit Chuenban's 2008 conviction when he appointed him to the cabinet. "The appointment of the second respondent [Pichit] shows the first respondent [Srettha] has no honesty and breached ethical standards," Punya added.When PM Anwar appointed the 'court cluster' into his Cabinet - maybe, he too should have been removed for this? Zahid Hamidi, when appointed as Deputy Prime Minister, was facing a criminal trial, where on 24/1/2022, the High Court had already ordered former deputy prime minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi to enter his defence on all 47 of his corruption, criminal breach of trust (CBT) and money laundering charges. Judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah ruled that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against Zahid.(FMT, 24/1/2024). If I was a MP, even if I supported Anwar as PM before, the moment this happened, I would have withdrawn my support.
MPs are elected by the people - Thus END DISCRIMINATION on the basis one is an Opposition MP.
When Anwar decided to not give give Federal Government allocations to Opposition MPs, he violated people's rights to FREELY chose their peoples' representative, and the democratic practice in Malaysia. Why are the people being 'punished' because they voted for the Opposition?
I had hoped that this 'bad practice' of the previous BN regime would have ended after GE14 - but PM Anwar's PH-led coalition government retained this unethical practice. MOST Dissapointed with Anwar - that financial allocation caused many problems, even some openly supporting Anwar, possibly to simply get the allocated monies. Personally, I think that those 6 MPs should be 'kicked out' and let the people elect new MPs - will the people vote the same MP because they to want these 'constitutional development funds' or not? However, the said MPs were not disqualified, because ultimately they were OUSTED by their party - and did not leave on their own.
Should the Executive Branch of Government(PM Anwar and his Cabinet) have CONTROL over MPs and the Parliament(the Legislative Branch) ? No, they should not - and it is definitely a violation of the DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION of power - Parliament should have ITS OWN FUNDS, and it alone decide how monies and/or other rights of MPs are disbursed and/or used.
Parliamentary Service Act 1963 ( Repealed by the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1992 [Act A837], which was an act providing for the Parliament of Malaysia to conduct its own administration, staffing and financing. may be coming back, but it may be inadequate.
An improved version of the Parliamentary Services Act (PSA), previously repealed, will be reintroduced in Parliament this October, says Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department M. Kulasegaran.The PSA, originally repealed during Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's administration, allows Parliament to function as an independent body, managing its affairs, selecting its staff, and controlling its expenditure. - NST, 12/7/2024
We need an Act of Parliament or Constitutional Amendment that provides for the funding/financing of a MPs staffs, utilities and rental of service centres, and monies to facilitate meetings and consultations between MP and/or his/her constituents as a MP is a PEOPLES' REPRESENTATIVE and has a duty of regular reporting, meeting and consultation with their constituents to be an effective representative of the people they represent.
A MP should not be provided by Parliament any additional funds for development or projects in their constituency. WHY? Because there are already budgetary allocations to the relevant Ministery/Department/Agencies to do the needed work - so, no need for MPs to duplicate works already allocated to government. They can bring to the attention of relevant departments that are tasked to do the needful.How many staff and service centres depends on the size of the Constituency...
So, this will be the law with regard to additional Constituency Allocations, not for 'development' purposes but to help MPs better do their WORK as MPs ALL MPs equally entitled, and the disbursing body will be Parliament, no more the Prime Minister and the Executive Arm of Government. A Special Consolidated Fund for Parliament/Legislature???
Should PM Anwar and the government be give any 'additional monies' to selected MPs? ABSOLUTELY NOT. If some 'development work' needed like road repairs, house repairs/building for the poor, etc and the Budget sum inadequate - then government sends monies to the relevant Ministry/Department to do the work - NOT to the MP.
So, BERSIH's proposal that it be in the MOU cannot be accepted - and REFORMS should be made law
No more will PM Anwar Ibrahim or the government have POWER over MPs.
Noting that Parliament's Primary Role is to ACT AS A CHECK AND BALANCE to ensure no wrongdoings, abuses, etc by the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, and the Ministries/entities under the government, NO government backbencher MP and Opposition MP should ever be 'compromised' by the offer of additional monies/benefits, positions in GLCs/Government Agencies(with or without additional monetary benefits and/or powers).
MPs are peoples' representatives, with a duty to always be in communication with the people they represent - this itself takes a LOT OF TIME and EFFORT. Then they have the responsibility to attend and perform their duties in Parliament (which include perusing Bills, highlighting flaws, asking relevant questions and making relevant comments). Then, there are the Parliamentary Select Committee duties - very important mechanisms to MONITOR the government. Thus, they should not be taking up other Government(Executive) appointments...also important to preserve the doctrine of "Separation of Powers', and their fundamental duty of being the CHECK AND BALANCE of what the Executive and Judicial Branch of government is doing.
Parliament failed in the 1MDB issue - they failed to detect and check the abuses of the government. MPs failed, when they allowed Najib to continue to remain PM and Finance Minister after becoming aware of the 'abuse/wrongdoings' - how much could have been SAVED if Parliament detected sooner and acted faster. Where MPs 'failed', the people did not when Najib and the BN government were ousted in GE14.
BERSIH's independence was tarnished after GE14, as prominent leaders and staff 'joined hands', even accepted positions in government then. We lost INDEPENDENT BERSIH - a human rights movement focussed not just on Free and Fair Elections, but also good governance. Since then the 'new' BERSIH has been striving to regain the perception of an independent pro-people movement...as such caution must be exercised so that BERSIH never be seen as pro-any political party or government.
Attached below is also a statement by MP Hassan Karim entitled MoU antara Kerajaan dengan Pembangkang di Parlimen Satu Pelanggaran Prinsip Pengasingan Kuasa [MoU between Government and Opposition in Parliament Is A Breach of the Principle of Separation of Powers]
See also BERSIH's statement - Deraf MOU Kurang Agenda Pelaksanaan Reformasi yang Jelas sebagai Parameter Penting, Pembangkang Tiada Alternatif untuk Diusulkan
## The MOU that was signed during Ismail Sabri's reign as Prime Minister was because of exceptional times - Covid-19 Pandemic, Suspension of Parliament - Declaration of EMERGENCY,.. It was an agreement between the Government and Pakatan Harapan(not all Opposition MPs, it seems}. It was a power-sharing agreement, with EQUAL number of government and Opposition MPs - not exactly the same as this current MOU at all. This current MOU seems to be an attempt by PM Anwar to remain as PM until GE16, and prohibits MPs from raising certain matters like 3R, etc {Have not seen the Draft of the current MOU yet - so based on media reports only). As such, it should never be seen as a PRECEDENCE at all.
Personally, I am of the view that MPs should seriously consider whether Anwar Ibrahim should remain as Prime Minister. We can always have some other from Pakatan Harapan as Prime Minister - thus not changing who is in power... With the issue raised by Muhyoiddin abotu his having the support of 115 MPs, and Anwar not specifically proving that he has majority support of MPs - noting that the vote of confidence in Parliament in December 2022 was merely a 'voice vote' - so we do not know exactly HOW many MPs support Anwar remaining PM, how many opposed, and how many just ABSTAINED. Constitutional requires explicit support of more half of all MPs - Time for another vote of confidence, and this time PLEASE COUNT - that will confirm matters without a doubt. Many things have happened since 2022, does Anwar still have the support of the majority of MPs???
Kenyataan Media BERSIH (17 September 2024): Deraf MOU Kurang Agenda Pelaksanaan Reformasi yang Jelas sebagai Parameter Penting, Pembangkang Tiada Alternatif untuk Diusulkan
Gabungan Pilihan Raya Bersih dan Adil (BERSIH) merujuk kepada kenyataan Ketua Pembangkang YB Dato Seri Hamzah Zainudin dan YB Timbalan Perdana Menteri II (TPM II) Dato Sri Haji Fadillah bin Haji Yusof berhubung isu Deraf Memorandum Persefahaman (MOU) berkaitan penyaluran peruntukan kepada ahli Parlimen antara Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Ahli Parlimen Pembangkang di Parlimen.
BERSIH berpandangan bahawa deraf MOU yang didedahkan oleh TPM II kelmarin tidak mempunyai item pelaksanaan reformasi yang lebih jelas sebagai parameter penting untuk agenda persefahaman antara Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Pembangkang selain daripada pemberian peruntukan pembangunan kawasan (CDF) kepada Ahli-Ahli Parlimen Pembangkang. Satu sudut positif yang harus dipuji di dalam MOU ini adalah pemberian akses kepada sumber rujukan, sumber pentadbiran dan sumber kewangan seperti ruang pejabat dan pembantu parlimen.
Halatuju di dalam MOU di antara Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Pembangkang haruslah lebih jelas objektifnya iaitu untuk memastikan agenda reformasi terlaksana sebagai hasil kesepakatan antara Kerajaan dan Pembangkang agar negara kita dapat bergerak ke hadapan sebagai sebuah negara demokrasi yang dapat dijadikan contoh di rantau ini.
BERSIH berpandangan bahawa MOU ini dapat ditambahbaik dengan memasukkan pelaksanaan agenda reformasi untuk disepakati bersama di antara Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Pembangkang. BERSIH mencadangkan supaya butiran di dalam MOU yang termeterai antara Kerajaan Persekutuan ketika era pentadbiran Perdana Menteri Ismail Sabri dan Pakatan Harapan dijadikan titik mula untuk dilanjutkan pelaksanaannya kerana kebanyakan pimpinan tertinggi BN, PN dan PH berada di dalam perbincangan dan pemeteraian MOU Tranformasi tersebut.
Berikut adalah cadangan BERSIH untuk dijadikan parameter dan kandungan MOU ini:
1. Peruntukan pembangunan kawasan harus dikanunkan dalam undang-undang menerusi penggubalan Akta Peruntukan Pembangunan Kawasan – Constituency Development Fund Act (CDF) yang saksama kepada Ahli Parlimen Kerajaan dan Pembangkang. Ini bagi memastikan hak dan keadilan untuk semua ahli Parlimen dijamin oleh undang-undang.
2. Reformasi SPR dengan memastikan ahli-ahli SPR selepas ini dilantik melalui Jawatankuasa Parlimen sebelum nama-nama calon tersebut dibawa ke Yang di-Pertuan Agong untuk dilantik. Hal ini supaya SPR menjadi bebas, adil, diperkasakan dan dipertanggungjawabkan ke Parlimen bagi memastikan pilihan raya bebas dan adil.
3. Peraturan Mesyuarat Dewan Rakyat (PMDR) perlu dipinda bagi memasukkan tatacara dan mekanisme undi tidak percaya dan undi percaya yang lebih jelas dan bermakna dengan memperkenalkan Confirmatory Vote of Confidence (Undi Percaya Pengabsahan) dan Constructive Vote of No-Confidence (Undi Tidak Percaya Berkonstruktif). Selain itu Bersih juga mencadangkan agar PMDR direformasi untuk memperuntukkan Masa Urusan Bukan Kerajaan apabila parlimen bersidang. Ini dapat memperkasa peranan pembangkang di parlimen dengan lebih bermakna.
4. Pengiktirafan Kabinet Bayangan Pembangkang dengan peruntukan yang mencukupi untuk membayangi Menteri dengan akses maklumat yang berpatutan supaya mereka dapat berfungsi dengan berkesan sebagai pembangkang yang konstruktif dan kerajaan menunggu.
5. Reformasi Jabatan Peguam Negara (AGC) dan SPRM untuk menghapuskan kawalan politik oleh Perdana Menteri. Kerajaan Persekutuan perlu menyegerakan pemisahan peranan Peguam Negara dan Pendakwaraya agar tidak wujud lagi persepsi pendakwaan politik terpilih oleh kerajaan. SPRM perlu direformasi agar pelantikan Pengerusi SPRM dapat dibuat dengan lebih telus dan melibatkan Parlimen.
Kemasukan agenda ini penting untuk memastikan pelaksanaan reformasi berjalan dengan baik demi kebaikan rakyat. BERSIH menggesa agar Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Pembangkang bersikap dengan lebih profesional, telus dan jujur dalam perbincangan kandungan perjanjian persefahaman supaya manfaat daripada kesepakatan tersebut akan dapat dirasai oleh rakyat keseluruhannya. Dalam perkembangan berkaitan, Bersih turut menegaskan kepentingan CSO untuk dilibatkan sama dalam rundingan Ahli Parlimen khususnya melibatkan isu kestabilan politik sebagai mewakili suara rakyat.
Dikeluarkan oleh:
Jawatankuasa Pemandu BERSIH
Reject government's draft MoU on equal allocation, PN told
Equal allocation should be given by default, says lawyer.
A lawyer has advised Perikatan Nasional (PN) to reject a proposed memorandum of understanding (MoU) that would impose conditions on the coalition's MPs for equal allocations for their constituencies.
Rafique Rashid said "unusual conditions" which are reportedly part of a draft MoU submitted to the PN leadership for consideration recently, would only restrict opposition MPs from carrying out their duties as elected representatives.
He cited conditions such as requiring PN MPs to declare assets, something normally demanded of those in power and not opposition politicians.
In addition, the draft MoU would require opposition MPs not to challenge the position of the prime minister until the end of the current parliamentary term and to pledge not to speak out on issues that fall under the so-called 3Rs - race, religion and royalty.
Rafique said these conditions would prevent MPs from standing up for the people.
"With restrictions like the 3Rs, how can the opposition speak up for the welfare of the Malays or the Islamic religious schools?" he asked, adding that the definition of 3Rs had been misinterpreted in the past.
PN said it would study the terms of the draft MoU prepared by the government last month.
The coalition's chief whip Takiyuddin Hassan said a decision will be made before the next Dewan Rakyat sitting in October.
Rafique said PN should make it clear to the government that equal allocation is the right of MPs and the constituencies they represent.
Veteran analyst Ahmad Atory Hussain said the conditions proposed by the government were against parliamentary democracy and freedom of speech.
"The ban on 3Rs is too extreme," he told MalaysiaNow.
"Apart from that, it is totally undemocratic and unconstitutional not to allow any challenge to the prime minister's office until the next general election."
Rafique said the prime minister's position is set out in Article 43 (4) of the constitution, which states that he must either resign or call a fresh election if he loses the support of the majority of MPs.
Government leaders have often cited the agreement signed in 2021 between then-prime minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob and Pakatan Harapan, then the opposition, that ensured the government's survival in return for fulfilling several conditions, including the passage of a law banning MPs from switching parties.
However, critics said that the agreement under Ismail's government served to prevent the collapse of the government amid the Covid-19 pandemic, and that it was not suitable in the current situation where the government claims to have achieved a two-thirds majority.
Rafique said allocations to MPs should be made by default as they are meant for the people and not for politicians or their parties.
"Allocations should be distributed to all elected representatives without conditions.
"There is no law that requires an MoU with conditions imposed," he added.
However, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)'s Mazlan Ali disagreed that opposition MPs automatically get allocations under Malaysia's parliamentary system.
He said it was customary for the government to channel all allocations and expenses through its agencies.
He said Ismail had taken a different approach when he offered to sign a confidence and supply agreement with the opposition, adding that such agreements were common in democracies where conditions are set between rival parties.
"They (PN) cannot insist that they get the allocations without any conditions. This does not happen in any democracy, not even in developed countries," he said.
Mazlan rejected claims that the conditions imposed by the government were unusual and defended the move to make opposition MPs disclose their assets.
He also welcomed the ban on 3Rs, adding that it should also be extended to ruling MPs.
"It would be better if the PN came up with a 'counter-proposal' to the coalition government," he added. - Malaysia Now, 10/9/2024
No comments:
Post a Comment