Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir should cut the Gordian knot of the Perak political crisis by agreeing to the dissolution of the Perak State Assembly or he will go down in history as the infamous “illegitimate Perak Mentri Besar” and dragging with him Najib Razak.
If Zambry is a democrat and believes that he has the mandate from the voters of Perak to be Mentri Besar, he should not have any qualm in opting for the only decent, honest and honourable solution to the political crisis – dissolution of the Perak State Assembly to return the mandate to the Perak voters to elect the Mentri Besar and government of their choice.
Zambry should know better than anyone that the illegal and unconstitutional power grab orchestrated by the Prime Minister-in-waiting, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, is a great disservice to the cause of the healthy growth of parliamentary democracy in the country.
This is because Zambry should have realized by now that he has no credibility and legitimacy whatsoever as the Perak Mentri Besar among the people of Perak and Malaysia – which explains why he had such a short fuse in his first media conference as the illegitimate Mentri Besar of Perak on Tuesday.
Najib might have thought that with the toppling of the Pakatan Rakyat state government and the undemocratic power grab in Perak, he has achieved a great coup which will redound to his credit in the UMNO general assembly next month when he is formally anointed Umno President and the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia.
But he cannot be more wrong. Times have changed. Najib’s calculations might be right if such an undemocratic coup d’etat had been orchestrated in the past half-century, but in the era of the information age, where the people are not only exposed to more information but have higher expectations about accountability, transparency, rule of law, democracy and good governance, the illegal and unconstitutional power grab like the one orchestrated by Najib in Perak is completely unacceptable.
Najib is going to pay a very heavy price as he would be forfeiting the privileges of his First Hundred Days when he takes over as the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia, for his every word and action as the new Prime Minister will come under the dark cloud because of his undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional coup d’etat in Perak.
The recent opinion poll by Merdeka Centre that 74% of Perak voters felt that the state assembly should be dissolved to pave way for elections while 76% of voters felt that “the people, through elections” should decide on forming the Perak state government sends out clear and unmistakable messages of the people.
The choice is in the hands of Zambry, whether he wants to go down in history as the infamous “illegitimate Perak Mentri Besar” dragging Najib along with him or whether he is prepared to subordinate personal interests to the higher interests of Perak and democracy by agreeing to the dissolution of the Perak State Assembly to end the political crisis in Perak, which will also release Najib from the millstone of the illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak.
#1 by HJ Angus on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 12:44 am
I wonder if the Perak state legal advisor is getting any sleep these days?
I think the Sultan of Selangor also has lost touch with his fellow citizens. Just see how even the most powerful man on earth Obama has to deal with law-makers and see his choice of ministers having to withdraw from cabinet nominations.
http://malaysiawatch4.blogspot.com/2009/02/malaysiakini-and-support-for-royalty.html
#2 by monsterball on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 12:49 am
#3 by pjboy on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 1:17 am
the whole matter is about the constitution, not about the sultan or bn or p-r. this should be stressed by the p-r leaders coz the media is only enjoying all the slip-ups by p-r leaders & will always make bn look good since they are paymaster.
i am sure not only 74% of perakians but also the whole country would like to see a total by-election in perak. this is what bn would want to avoid totally for obvious reasons. one they will be afraid they lose more seats in the outcome, which is most likely after such a fiasco; & bn will have to spend hundreds of millions, as if losing nearly 500 million in k-t by-election was not enough. for this reason they could only afford to buy over 3 frogs & a worm (the one that hop to & fro).
perhaps it is a way for perak sultan to test how sincere is bn as well. if bn do not dissolve the state assembly, that is bn true colours – power & greed. bn exposed themselves completely & showed the people they are the bigger evil (in politics). earlier, didn’t understand why perak sultan made such an odd decision. now i can see one of the possibilities. perak sultan also want to gauge if bn is still favourable or p-r to the people of perak. p-r only held a mere 2 seat majority. it was fragile & bn also knows that the pkr do not have quality leaders in perak. they knew the 2 weakest ones & hunted & haunted them. the rakyat would like to know how will their corruption charges go, now that they are bn members.
the other difference is that when bota hop over, p-r was still in power constitutionally. it did not make any difference. however, when 3 p-r hop to bn, this is where the difference is. in principal, & out of shear desperation, bn claim perak is theirs immediately without any respect to the consitution. this was an act of derhaka to the constitution. bn no knows no shame & would go so low just to win. a ruling gov using a coup tactic wrestle its way into a state gov. it’s so immature.
#4 by waterfrontcoolie on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 7:11 am
How does one gets respect? by one’s behaviour! not by demanding for it! Only those haunted by their past actions which cannot see the bright day-light would demand respect without condition! Even today, there are so many that we will have to fill-up the whole page.
They forgot that with modern communication, not much truth or evil deeds can be hidden. The only way is not to do what is wrong. One’s action, right or wrong, is best judged by the general public who cannot be forced to think like the speaker, whoever he is! In today’s world, Zimbabwe used to do that, even now it is changing! and that would leave us without wanting to change!!
#5 by passerby on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 7:50 am
What is the possibility of umno/Najib to declare an emergency rule to break the impasse? He has so much crap on him and what happen if he sensed that he will be losing control of the gov. and could be charged for the involvement in the murder, the corruption and abuse of power? Will he do it to save himself and be damn with the country?
#6 by Bigjoe on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 9:00 am
While all this rough-fighting is necessary post-Perak Coup, its really time to start rethinking worst case scenarios and plan. This may be bad news for PR but every cloud has a silver lining.
Najib took dirty fighting to a new level and hence gives PR the right to up the ante. The mistake here is to fall into his trap and use the same things he uses.
I put it to PR that the key to success is the anti-ISA movement. What reconditioned Mahathirist Najib did is robbing people of their right to choices and so the key to getting rid of him is to bait him to CONTINUE TO ROB PEOPLE of their choices. Bait him to use the ISA more often and BN govt will fall.
In fact all it takes for PR is to built a nationally popular figure in Sarawak and Sabah and bait BN to send him to jail with ISA and PR will form the next Federal Govt. But the problem is there is no key nationally local figure from Sarawak and Sabah in opposition and worst, one willing to go to jail for the cause. So fundamental to PR strategy for the next GE is built that figure, you have 3/4 years to do it. Get to work!!!!
#7 by KennyGan on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 9:13 am
Legality of govt challenged in court
Widespread public disdain of govt formed by defections
PR Menteri Besar refused to resign
Racial composition of assembly persons badly skewed with no Indian.
Respect and dignity of Royal House affected by imbroglio
Speaker in the hands of the opposition
Two defectors facing corruption charges and will lose seats if convicted
Chinese defector under great pressure from her community to resign
Seats of defectors declared vacant by Speaker
Slim majority in assembly means unstable govt
Widespread public disgust may affect BN in next G.E.
All the above are serious issues which can be solved or ameliorated by dissolving the assembly and holding fresh state elections. The fact that BN dare not hold fresh elections show how scared they are to face the public.
#8 by lopez on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 10:21 am
when you apply for membership to a certain association, you are admitted only the association deemed you have met their values and beliefs. Like wise you only apply to join if you think that association meets your aspirations of the commonality in said values and beliefs.
You get kick out if you flout the rules once joined and you can opt to resign once you feel the association has deviated from that commonality.
members of the assocaition elects you and empowers you if they think you energies and capabilities can benefit and meet the plights in line with the values and beliefs of the association.
Suddenly you decide to become ” independent”,
and claimed you still have the mandate and is still empowered of the position,
but what happen to the beliefs and values you represent before becoming independent
what are your independent values and beliefs?
“take them to holland and sell their aspirations for change”
#9 by limkamput on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 10:51 am
monsterball Says:
Today at 00: 49.34 (9 hours ago)
“Imranj78… is an idiot.
[deleted]
Wanderer is a freedom fighter
Jeffery is confused and long winded
Zambry is a devil.
Anwar will put ZAmbry in jail….one nice day.
Weekend is lousy with no good news
And, finally mosterball is a moronic odd ball – a ball that can even roll properly”.
#10 by monsterball on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 11:14 am
hahahahahaha…”ODD ball than can even roll properly”.
That sums up limkamput logic.
#11 by monsterball on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 11:21 am
Star paper headline…”Zamby is charge with a summonS
Paper is managed by tong sampah english editor.,,,,,hashahahaha
I thought mine was bad enough.
But to read Star can put up such a headline…mine better la.
What a shame…leading English paper!!
#12 by limkamput on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 11:28 am
You are too moronic to know that i missed the word “not” in my previous posting. to make it simple for you: And, finally mosterball is a moronic odd ball – a ball that can’t even roll properly”.
#13 by Josh Marconi on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 11:39 am
It is naive on our part to think that Zambry is not aware of the legitimacy of his minority government.
The tactics used by BN assume power seems to be taken from Machiavelli’s The Prince playbook. It is inconceivable that they will relinquish power.
In my untutored point of view BN is banking on the fact that the voters have short memory, where after the anger die down, people would be more accepting of the BN government.
My heart goes to the people of Perak. The bright side of this terrible tragedy is people have seem the other side of BN, where they allegiance is only to power not the people.
Just like Samy Vellu who refuse to acknowledge that fact votes for opposition are votes against him, Najib too will dismiss the outcome of the two by-elections in April.
#14 by Joshua Tan Kok Hauw on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 11:47 am
Najib and the illegitimate MB of Perak are cowards, they are not ‘anak jantan’.
BN accepts the hopping of party(defections) by three SLAssemblymen of PR is unjustifiable by saying Anwar is the one who started it . Now, Anwar is now a PR member, do Najib and other component parties of BN intend to PR too.
It is opined that DAP can initiate a private member’s bill on banning the party hopping.in the coming parliamentary session.
#15 by info on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 12:07 pm
Hi,
This has nothing to do with the post.. but I thought that PR should get a heads up. Just read RPK’s latest post about the Selangor and Kedah situation. If Perak’s anything to go by, I think we should all know that he isn’t kidding around when he says something. At least now, you have time to plan a counter move in Selangor and Kedah. Something better be done QUICK to avoid any more catastrophes for PR (i.e. collapse of selangor n kedah)
#16 by OrangRojak on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 12:13 pm
claimed you still have the mandate
The problem with the defections seems to be that ‘mandate’ is trumped by ‘freedom of association’ – a Constitutional right. I asked this before, so apologies if it wasn’t answered because it’s a stupid question – but could a polling slip be regarded as a contract between voter and representative? Could the (for example) Jelapang voters go to court for breach of contract? If the inclusion of a political party on a polling slip is inferior to the right of freedom of association, what is the value of including the political affiliation of the candidate? It appears that political affiliation is just another pre-election promise to be abandoned later. Political affiliation would be a much simpler test for a court than many other pre-election promises.
#17 by alaneth on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 12:37 pm
Quote:
sheriff singh Says:
Yesterday at 16: 20.40
Ms Hee is in a dilemma.
She’s been sidelined by the BN government. She has been very unhappy of late because she did not get her Camry and the Exco’s post she craved for and which was promised to her. In fact, Zambry said she will be appointed “only if the people want her” which they don’t. So she’s realised she’s been played out.
She’s miserable and wants to go back to DAP which now don’t want her but wants her to vacate her seat. So this “Independent” is now a solo and she may vacate her seat as she and her family just can’t take the stress anymore.
Where did you get this info from? I would be happy to know. Then PR can regain Perak?!
#18 by lopez on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 1:03 pm
simply put
it is burning the bridge after crossing it. …..
leave the complexities of intepretation of words in passages as drafted by people and intepreted by chosen people.
it is everything goes ……whhhheeeee
#19 by k1980 on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 1:11 pm
Can RM25 million cure the frog from polio?
[deleted]
#20 by OrangRojak on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 1:23 pm
It’s obviously in DAP’s interest for DAP turncoats to vacate their seats, allowing the electorate to reassert their choice. The manner of a turncoat’s resignation could, in my opinion, be a disaster for DAP. If an elected (even by voters who feel they have been cheated) politician were to be hounded from office by intimidation, defamation, harassment or extortion, that would be another sorry day for democracy and the rule of law.
#21 by gofortruth on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 2:42 pm
HOW TO STOP PEOPLE FROM HOPPING IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ANTI HOPPPING LAW???
What RPK said in his latest post in MT “Are Kedah & Selangor next?” is a real course for concern for PAKATAN. BN has the carrots and it has just been proven that it worked in Perak, even 20 years long serving member & 2 terms ADUN FELL. For UMNO, it is cheaper to buy ADUNs & MPs than to buy voters to win elections!
Are there no legally binding internal party clauses which stipulate clearly that any member who is chosen to ride on the party ticket for an election must also abide that in the event that the person is elected, he/she is oblidged to vacate his/her elected seat should he/she wishes to depart from the party to be independent or to join BN?
#22 by StevePCH on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 3:09 pm
if the UMNO controlled media is spreading news and disseminating ideas of treason into Malaysians, PR would really need to use it’s best weapon. SMS.
Last election was won mainly through SMSes and WWWs.
Articles from Utusan editorials Awang Selamat with words like : ( fm Malaysian Insider ) ”
Sebagai negara raja berperlembagaan, tiada sesiapa boleh dibenarkan menghina dan memperlekehkan raja. Jika kita berlembut, ia akan membawa isyarat yang salah dan mendorong banyak pihak melakukan perkara lebih dahsyat ke atas institusi raja negara ini pada masa depan.
Pada hari ini pun, sudah banyak reaksi liar dan memburukkan raja berlegar menerusi internet akibat daripada tindakan secara terbuka mencabar Sultan Azlan. Nizar sanggup menderhaka, Anwar berdasarkan kenyataannya mahu Nizar terus menjadi MB walaupun tidak lagi sah (berlawanan dengan titah raja) dan Karpal terus mempersoalkan Sultan Perak selain mahu menyaman baginda. ”
it’s very disturbing that the truth is being twisted for wrongs.
SMS works best. It’s fast and nearly everyone use a H/P.
True news will get to all.
PR does not have the luxury of MSM like BN. with SMSes, it’s cheap , fast , self replicating and most importantly … far reaching.
Please act swiftly in order to avoid permanent damages to Malaysian mentality on constitutional monarchy truth and fallacy.
Time is running out for PR. BN’s MEGA MSM is working day and night and PR is reaching out to small sections of communities on this issue.
PR leaders should come up with a strong statement to be issued to MSM to clearly clarify issues regarding royalty.
Apologise if you have to to the royals but get the message right through.
A single statement through SMS , emails etc. should also be made.
Do not be complacent and think that Rakyat is on your side and you can keep going like you are now. Complacency is BN’s worst enemy and PR do not want to be infected with it.
PR should be careful because Malaysian are loyal to the monarchy regardless of their colors.
Do not get caught in BN’s race game !!! Good Luck !
#23 by OrangRojak on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 3:11 pm
Are there no legally binding internal party clauses
They would all be inferior to the right to freedom of association. The resignation letters appear to have been dealt with in an earlier court case, according to that letter of Shad Faruqi’s that RPK has posted:
If it’s not possible for the voters to claim breach of contract, I can’t see any value in the parties trying the same thing – their loss is what? Campaign costs? Presumably loss of majority is a risk they take, given Freedom of Association.
If it’s not made absolutely clear to voters that party affiliation is printed on the polling slips only to give an indication of nominating party, or some such other trivial administrative matter, one has to suspect its inclusion. Is it an error, given its apparent meaninglessness after the election? Is it reasonable to imagine that many voters will have voted for the party and not the person? Who would be in breach? Is the contract between the elected person and the voter? Or could it be between the voter and the Electoral Commission? It seems there’s an opportunity to clear up some misconceptions and possibly firm up some law too. I’d be interested to hear an answer to the specific question of “Why is the party shown on the polling slip if affiliation is meaningless in the face of a superior right to Freedom of Association?”
#24 by limkamput on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 3:48 pm
Someone Says:
Yesterday at 16: 20.40
“Ms hee hee hee is in a dilemma”.
Don’t be naïve, what hee hee hee is getting or not getting I guess we will never know. Of course having done such a treacher0us thing, she has to show that she is not getting anything. BN, having used her nicely, would certainly want to show that she is providing her “service” freely and willingly. It is simple, even a wh0re would not want the whole world to know she is one. Similarly the one who visited a wh0re, if exposed, would never want to admit he had paid for the service.
#25 by zak_hammaad on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 4:12 pm
Looks like Pakatan (DAP esp.) are still sour about losing the state to BN. They only have their psycho leader Anwar to thank since “party hopping” was a concept he fully brought to the fore. If Pakatan can’t stand the heat of it’s own making, maybe they should get out of the kitchen.
By burning bridges, Pakatan will be left licking their own wounds, alone!
#26 by monsterball on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 4:29 pm
Limkamput [deleted]
(Monsterball, Limkamput – lets not begin a new exchange of abuses. Would you like to email each other to take the exchange off the blog? – Admin)
#27 by HB Lim on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 4:35 pm
From Dr Chua Soi Lek’s blog:
“EXCO in Perak
Ever since the BN government forms its EXCO, I have been receiving a lot of calls and SMS complaining about the composition of EXCO in Perak.
MCA is not given its correct representation in the state government. There are 6 elected ADUN appointed as EXCO. Since there is only 1 MCA ADUN, he was appointed to the EXCO.
However, the state government appointed 4 advisors with the status of an EXCO and this is the part that has given rise to dissatisfaction about power sharing at the state level.
Of the 4 appointed members, 2 come from UMNO, 1 from MIC and 1 from Gerakan. In other words, the state EXCO is made out of 7 UMNO members, 1 Gerakan, 1 MIC and 1 MCA.
No MCA members were appointed as advisor with rank of an EXCO.
Before the 308 General Election, MCA had 2 EXCOs, there was 1 from Gerakan and 1 from MIC.
To add insult to injury, the Gerakan ‘advisor’ was to be in charge of Chinese affairs. MCA is a solely Chinese based political party. Gerakan claims itself to be multiracial political party, then why is Gerakan representing the Chinese?
So, on these counts, Chinese affairs should be given to MCA. There should be an appointment of MCA advisor. There is over representation of UMNO in the EXCO composition.
People will compare the composition of EXCO plus the advisor against the line up of the previous PR government.
I wonder the new MB has ever discussed with its component party before the appointment of advisors or is it a question of after appointment, then only inform.
Hence, today, there is the unacceptable power sharing at the state level. I am sure that this will be fully exploited by PR in the next by-election.
On a personal level, I will raise this up in the coming MCA Central Committee meeting on Sunday that the composition in EXCO is unacceptable to MCA and that the one in charge of Chinese affairs should be MCA.”
Poor Zamrey, challenges from within and without.
The show has moved to the next stage and at the centre is now the Speaker of the Perak State Assembly from the PR who is legally still the Speaker. What he should do is to retain the seating arrangement, acknowledge Nizar as the MB, send the kataks out for having resigned, send Zamrey and his “exco” to the Privileges Committee and to hell…the end of the show is not anywhere near yet. We are in for more interesting times.
#28 by HB Lim on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 4:37 pm
Sorry, Zambry was mis-spelt as Zamrey…
#29 by limkamput on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 4:45 pm
HL Lim, may i know what is so enlighting about Chua Soi Lek posting in his blog. Other than his video, did he say or do anything worthwhile when was a federal minister. OTK was once talking like him. May I know where is he now? Get to the basic, cast everyone of them out.
#30 by limkamput on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 4:48 pm
HL Lim, may i know what is so enlightening about Chua Soi Lek’s posting in his blog. Other than his video, did he say or do anything worthwhile when he was a federal minister. OTK was once talking like him. May I know where is he now? Get to the basic, cast everyone of them out.
#31 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 5:02 pm
Let me try to tackle some of your questions, beginning “Why is the party shown on the polling slip if affiliation is meaningless…???” – Orang Rojak
First of all, a political party is shown on polling slip because it facilitates a voter to choose the party by marking “X” in relation to candidate affliated to that party. From angle of enabling a voter to exercise democratic vote, party affliation in ballot slip is meaningful. It is meaningless from the other angle that after being voted into office, the candidate could renege all his campaign promises and even defect to opposing party without suffering any material reprecussions except being voted against or out in next poll if there are sufficient numbers of vboters equally disappointed!
Right now only ‘contracts’ are established between the candidate and his party providing his ticket and financing his campaign expenses.
There is no contract between a candidate or his party with the voter expressed in any law and any ballot slip. There is no contract in ballot slip because there are no contractual terms stipulated in it.
It is an interesting concept to forge a contract between a voter with first the candidate and, then his party, with basic contractual terms stated explicitly either in the ballot slip or alternatively implied into the act of voting but some legislation.
The terms can provide that upon voted into office the candidate will represent the needs and views of the electorate in the Parliament or state assembly, embark on reasonable endeavour to implement his or his party’s pledges which is doubly guaranteed/answerable by his party. In addition he is not to defect. At first instance it sounds a good suggestion : if he defects, those who voted for him can, as an effective deterrent, all sue him and the aggreagate damages may be more than the financial gratification he gets from opposite side to defect. There is however a snag. Everyone wants to sue the defector for money not just the truly aggrieved elector who voted him but also the one who voted against him, so the question is how does one differentiate one from the other unless there is a means via records of how and for each party or person an elector voted to establish his being a party to the “contract” vesting the right to sue. Such records violartes the basic principle of confidentiality of secret ballot, a constitutional right……
For this reason it is easier to skin the cat another way by enacting an anti hopping law. Such an enactment requires amendment to the Constitution (if there’s sufficient political will on both sides of political divide). The Constitution needs to be tweaked because of the inconvenient Apex court decision of Nordin Salleh (1992) case that says any contract between political party and its candidate, is invalid to extent that it restricts hopping interpreted by the Federal Court against Constitutional right of Freedom of Association. Like it or not that’s the law as it stands and it applies to strike down contracts restricting hopping between candidate and his party as much as (logically) any contract forged between voters and the candidate even if such contractual terms are imlied to the act of voting, and the need for secrecy of vote were discounted. Instead of waiting for the Federal court to overturn its 1992 decision, it would be more expedient to amend the Constitution so that an anti hopping law enacted will not conflict with the Constitution.
#32 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 5:10 pm
Correction of typo errors – “material repERcussions except being voted against or out in next poll if there are sufficient numbers of VOters equally disappointed!” and “alternatively implied into the act of voting BY some legislation”
#33 by shortie kiasu on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 5:42 pm
It is a foregone conclusion to get rid of the MB now because of the number contributed by PKR (2) & DAP (1).
PR should move forward and see what they do to salvage the situation. Treat it as a lesson to learn from, and expensive experience to gain.
Zambri will never resign. It is a like a piece of meat in his mouth he will not pit out. He will bite as hard as firm as he can, moreover he has the support of BN and the sultan behind him.
PR will be waging a losing battle to ask for him to give up the post.
#34 by lopez on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 6:43 pm
what rules , what regulations, what law can undo what has been done…
law mongers also flout the laws , and gets forgotten deemed cordially pardon
how much laws need to be created …when will this stop
it is always the same trait after scandalous moves appear, then start blaiming who flout the laws, who has not follow the protocol, what bullshit…..lies and lies address the issue lah
in no time there will be laws on how we should pee
habiskan wayang..berpura pura ke mana….let the people decide their future, go for it . have a by election
hee haw hee haw…..
#35 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 7:20 pm
Monsterball, Limkamput – lets not begin a new exchange of abuses. Would you like to email each other to take the exchange off the blog? – Admin
That’s OK. You can abuse UMNO Youth.
#36 by OrangRojak on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 9:54 pm
Thanks for the reply Jeffrey – I was wondering if, rather than financial loss, the voter could sue for their vote back, in a re-run of the election in which it was ‘lost’. Democracy enables voters to have a say in how their government is run. Party affiliation is the last hope voters have of predicting their representative’s behaviour after the vote. Without that, their representative is political power for hire, and the voter has lost their say. The voter is no longer exercising their democratic right to influence how their country is run, but instead choosing which candidate gets to benefit from corruption.
no contractual terms stipulated
I’ve a feeling in the UK there would be no need to stipulate contractual terms in words. Isn’t there some sort of legal concept as an ‘implied contract’? Wasn’t there a case of a man who successfully sued Volvo after his car failed to survive being driven off the roof of a multi-storey car park, when their advertising suggested it would? Maybe I misunderstand precisely what you mean when you say ‘not stipulated’ or ‘contractual terms’.
#37 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 15 February 2009 - 11:14 pm
‘Implied contract’ is possible – where there is a piece of legislation implying contractual terms to the vote. It does not change the fact that any recourse on contract (whether based on iterms implide by a legislation or express terms in the ballot box) will require identification/verification of who is the voter vis-a-vis the candidate (based on clear records) which is necessary to provide the contractual nexus/privity and basis to sue.
However keeping such records, as I earlier mentioned, will violate secrecy of ballot, which is competing principle we will want maintained strictly and not relaxed merely for the benefit of maintaining a suit based on contract (implied or express) – whether to sue for money or sue for vote back (if that were possible).
#38 by anna brella on Monday, 16 February 2009 - 12:18 am
OrangRojak has in my view, asked a very interesting question.
For whatever it is worth in these days of economic/currency turmoil, here is how I see it.
The freedom to associate right is imo, a right attached to the individual citizen as private citizen as long as there is no other higher right overriding it.
The democratic election process is the intrinsic change mechanism in the citizen’s own governance system that enables the citizen to change what is not working well and to ensure the overall health of the whole system so that it continues to remain fit for purpose and benefit.
Based on that line of common sense reasoning, if a citizen wishes to become the people’s elected representative, then the democratic constitutional right of the citizen as voter (say like that of a company’s equity shareholder) surely ought to override/reduce the election candidate’s constitutional right as private citizen to free association (say like that of a company’s board director) after he/she has been democratically elected within the agreed process.
Think it safe to say that most reasonable people would agree that an election candidate who stands for election on some political party’s ticket is representing to the voter both his/her personal qualities/abilities AND the policies of the party they are standing for. That is their “offer” to the voter which the voter is then free to accept (using whichever permutation of that offer) that offer or not by voting or not voting for that candidate, with their valuable vote cast for that candidate being the consideration for sealing that mutually agreed democratic contract, which if it is to be of any worth to the voter, surely must be signed and sealed based on that high insurance standard we call uberimae fidei.
So if the elected representative subsequently finds that, based on some principled reason in support of their conscience usually, they cannot any longer support the actions of their political party/leaders then they must be left free to resign from that party asociation. This is surely good practice as it offers protection to the voter/People too.
And because of that primary democratic contract of uberimae fidae with the voter, the elected representative MUST also resign from their elected seat and re-offer themselves (if they wish to do so) to their voters for re-election to that seat. If the voters agree with the reasons for their elected representative’s resignation, then they will probably re-elect that candidate again at that by-election; if not then they will vote in someone else as is their right.
If you do not have this protection in place, then the voters may be running the risk of being at the mercy of potentially unprincipled elected representatives. Yes, they can get redress at that next electoral opportunity but that opportunity could also arrive far too late and perhaps even after dangerous damage has been done to the overall system itself to effectively prevent democratic change.
Therefore, imo, party-hopping should be allowed but only if those who hop (for whatever reason) then have to resign from their elected seat, justify their decision to change allegiance to their voters and stand for re-election in the automatically resulting by-election.
So from my point of view, what may need to be changed is the current restriction which prevents those wishing to change allegiance from re-offering themselves for election into that/any other seat for the stipulated period of (five years?) time. I would also say that imo, this restriction is also unconstitutional as it clearly appears to go against the citizen’s right of free association as well as the voter’s right not to be ****ed-over well and truly and perhaps also royally by their elected representatives who turn out to be immoral and unprincipled politicians.
“Imagine Power To The People” John Lennon.
#39 by letek on Friday, 27 February 2009 - 9:23 am
What is LAW? What is constitution ACT? It has 2 interpretations to ruling party. So much so, they are controlling the police force, the judiciary as well as the monarch. So, what else they cannot do! So, don’t ever forget, we the people got only one sanctity chance, i.e. our priority time to cast our vote. Don’t ever forget, whenever there is an apportunity comes ,use your vote in hand to give them a big lesson. Bear in mind there is NO point to waste our breath to argue or have conflict with the animals.
#40 by ktteokt on Friday, 6 March 2009 - 2:41 pm
If the court insists that Siva cannot be represented by private lawyers but only the state’s legal advisor, this is a silent admission that Siva is still the Menteri Besar of Perak and PR is the state government. Wouldn’t this make the BN Perak state government ILLEGAL???????