I have received a shocking response from the Election Commission declaring that it does not recognize the concept of caretaker government when Parliament is dissolved to ensure free, fair and clean general election.
The Secretary of the Election Commission Datuk Kamaruzaman bin Mohd Noor in a letter dated 17th January 2008 but faxed to my office on January 22, 2008 in response to a letter dated 7th January 2008 from Lau Weng San, Secretary to Parliamentary Opposition Leader’s Office asking for the fixing of an appointment between the Election Commission Chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid and myself, wrote:
“Sukacita dimaklumkan bahawa dalam kerangka undang-undang pilihan raya Negara kita termasuk Perelembagaan Persekutuan tidak menyatakan adanya ‘Caretaker Government’. Oleh yang demikian, apabila pembubaran Parlimen atau Dewan Undangan Negeri berlaku, maka kerajaan yang memerintah sebelum pembubaran tersebut akan terus menerajui kerajaan sehinggalah sebuah kerajaan baru ditubuhkan selepas keputusan pilihan raya diumumkan secara rasmi oleh Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) Malaysia.
“Adalah dimaklumkan bahawa SPR bukan jabatan atau agensi kerajaan yang bertanggungjawab untuk memberikan tafsiran mengenai sesuatu perkara atau fasal yang terkandung di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Ini kerana pihak yang lebih layak untuk memberi apa-apa interpretasi mengenai Perlembagaan Persekutuan ialah Jabatan Peguam Negara. Justeru itu, tuan adalah dinasihatkan untuk berhubung terus dengan Jabatan berkenaan jika tuan memerlukan apa-apa interpretasi mengenai sesuatu perkara atau fasal yang menyentuh Perlembagaan Persekutuan.”
The fifth principle of Rukunegara committed the government and every Malaysian to “Good Behaviour and Morality” but Malaysia has never been subjected to a more intense attack of the most brazen disregard and contempt for fundamental decencies of good behaviour, morality and the principles of good governance as in recent times – with the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape in the past two weeks providing the most blatant and flagrant of examples.
But such brazen disregard and contempt for good behaviour, morality and good governance are not just confined to the circus of the Lingam Tape Royal Commission of Inquiry but is to be found in every department of public administration.
The latest example is furnished by the Election Commission with its contemptuous dismissal of the concept of caretaker government when Parliament is dissolved – expected during the Chinese New Year period.
The Election Commission is violating the National Integrity Plan in refusing to recognize the concept of caretaker government when Parliament is dissolved to ensure free, fair and clean general election.
Nobody is asking the Election Commission to interpret the Constitution. The Election Commission is also barking up the wrong tree when it claims that the Constitution is silent on the “caretaker government” concept.
Is the national integrity concept and the National Integrity Plan to be found in the Constitution, and is the Election Commission immune from having to honour and uphold the principles of institutional good behaviour and integrity in the discharge of its constitutional duties to conduct free, fair and clean general election?
Or Will the Election Commission turn around and say that as the Constitution does not say anything about “free, fair and clean election”, the Election Commission has no constitutional duty to ensure that the next general election is free, fair and clean, although the Election Commission is going to spend RM200 million, the most expensive general election in the nation’s 50-year history?
The Election Commission is being most irresponsible in suggesting that a different government would be constituted to be the “caretaker government” after dissolution of Parliament.
This is not the case. The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers remain the same, with them drawing their salaries and emoluments from the public coffers despite the dissolution of Parliament.
However, they must be mindful that they are only a “caretaker government” after the dissolution of Parliament and they should not abuse government positions, machinery, resources and funds for any electioneering purpose for a political party or candidate.
A candidate, who benefits unfairly from any such “unhealthy” and dishonest practices, as campaigning assistance by the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister or Cabinet Minister through the abuse of their government positions or misuse of public funds and resources, should be subject to disqualification – and such penalties also apply to Cabinet Ministers who abused their “caretaker government” role as illustrated by the classic case of the disqualification of Indian Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi who misused the “caretaker government” trust in flying around in government helicopter for party electioneering campaign.
The Election Commission would have failed its constitutional duty as well as the National Integrity Plan in rejecting the concept of “caretaker government” after dissolution of Parliament – which is all about honesty, integrity and ethical conduct.
I call on the Election Commission Chairman and Commissioners to convene an emergency meeting to review and rescind the Election Commission’s rejection of the “caretaker government” concept after dissolution of Parliament – for it will be a signal that the next general election could be the dirtiest one in the nation’s history.
In this connection, I call on the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to declare whether he accepts and will honour the “caretaker government” concept when Parliament is dissolved, instructing all Cabinet Ministers not to abuse and misuse government positions, machinery, resources and funds for electionerring purposes so as to maintain a strict and clear distinction between government and party.
It is precisely because the clear and important distinctions between government, party and individual interests have been blurred which is the cause of the rampant corruption and abuses of power in the country making a total mockery of the National Integrity Plan launched by Abdullah in May 2004.
#1 by a-malaysian on Friday, 25 January 2008 - 1:39 pm
The sleepy pm, (whether in his dream) ask people not to hold peaceful rally but talk to him and he is ever willing to listen. Is he really listening to the cry of the rakyat…..of course he listen if the topic is about praising the gomen, but when it is something bad about the gomen he return to his sleep and play deaf.
The Indians as Malaysian citizens are asking for equal rights, instead of giving that rights he declare Thaipusam a holiday for two selected areas, but not because of the Indian festival, its because of traffic jam??????
There is no way we can talk to the present umno run gomen but to continue with peaceful rallies and civil disobedience.
The Agong can act or do something when parliament is dissovled to ensure a neutral care-taker gomen but I do not think he would want to do anything.
So the only way is “BERSIH”, where are you? I suggest that peaceful rallies must continuously be held from now onwards and not only on February the 23rd 2008. We can held every weekend or even better everyday. Provide a few locations for those who wants to attend and they can choose the day that suits them. We can still maintain the Feb 23rd as the final assault on the EC.
50 years is ENOUGH
Vote For A Change
Vote For Any Opposition
Give Them A Chance To Change For A Better Malaysia
Remember bn Is A Useless Grouping Of Self Serving, Corrupt, Dictator, Power Crazy, Racist, Kris waving, etc, etc type of parties.
#2 by boh-liao on Friday, 25 January 2008 - 1:42 pm
The Election Commission looks like ‘fair and neutral’, sounds like like ‘fair and neutral’, but is it really like ‘fair and neutral’? Or just another instrument of BN?
In Malaysia, everything sounds good.
As TDM said: Megat Junid was honest and a minister of quality. Sounds like it, looks like it – but really? It’s time for MJ to face his maker and convince his maker that he is honest and of quality.
#3 by vehir on Friday, 25 January 2008 - 1:50 pm
Is there any provision in that when Parliament is dissolved a caretaker government will be appointed.
If there is the caretaker goverment has no right to allow election campaigns to be chanelled to TV and radio stations for the previous ruling government.
They even cannot abuse and misuse government machinery, resources and funds for electio campaigns.
The BN coalition parties must use their party to rightfully perform their election campaign and not sit and harp on the expense of government aids and resources.
If the answer is yes to a caretaker government should be in contol, then for the past 11th election they have taken the rakyat for a expensive ride.
All this must be put a stop and the opposition must be united to fight such abuse of powers. Opposition should ask for more airtime to speak. Opposition should ask for 2 weeks time for election campaign after nomination.
#4 by k1980 on Friday, 25 January 2008 - 2:19 pm
Say, for example, you are presented with a video of yourself having sex with a florist-cum-personal friend. You could delay a public resignation by arguing, ‘It looks like me and uh, sounds like me, wait a minute, oh wow, is that really me? Am I that athletic? I didn’t know I could do that . . . no no that definitely can’t be me. But you know, if it was me, I think I’m pretty hot. But I’m not saying it’s me.’
http://sophiesworld-sophiesworld.blogspot.com/2008/01/lingam-defence.html
#5 by HJ Angus on Friday, 25 January 2008 - 4:46 pm
I suggest the Opposition parties to sue the Elections Commissions for wrongly deciding that a caretaker government is not part of the democratic process.
Even strife-torn Pakistan has such a facility and the election campaign lasts about 2 months. Surely the security situation in Malaysia is better.
I wonder if the caretaker concept was abolished during the Emergency years and then conveniently forgotten.
We should bring this matter up in the courts.
http://malaysiawatch3.blogspot.com/2008/01/malaysias-general-elections-scam.html
#6 by oknyua on Friday, 25 January 2008 - 5:00 pm
YB Lim,
At this juncture, I want to differ slightly. Like every positive things you proposed, AAB or the EC is not going to accede simply because the issue itself questions their integrity. That is one big blank wall that you might not want to spend your time on now.
Your earlier post on DAP-PKR is of interest to us, the voters. It is also the main issue that could literally determine our place for the future. Please update us on the pact. Thank you.
#7 by unsatisfied on Friday, 25 January 2008 - 5:17 pm
Shocked? suprised? i will if the EC accepts it. Anyway get this news from Zorro’s blog that Samy Vellu already leading by 10000 votes, 5k from asli votes another 5k from army votes. Looks like more hard work needed.
#8 by gofortruth on Friday, 25 January 2008 - 5:17 pm
The tenure of the person in charge of the Election Commission was extented for a year for the very purpose of ensuring a bias, unfair & unclean coming Malaysian election. So, what good can we expect from them?
#9 by gofortruth on Friday, 25 January 2008 - 5:30 pm
Shocking news:-
1) Malaysian Islamic authority allows muslim to eat pork?
2) Malaysian Islamic authority sent officers to help a converted man to force his old and sick Budhist father to a muslim conversion without the presence & notifying of other family members?
3) Is this the rise of a new kind of I – slam in Malaysia?
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/77452
#10 by winterman05 on Friday, 25 January 2008 - 8:42 pm
Mr. Lim,
The Election Commission ” looks like and sounds like ” BN!!! For decades, the EC has been biased.
One, the principle of one-man-one vote is not adhered to. One constituency in a rural area may have 10,000 votes while one in the city may have 80,000 voters. This translates to one rural vote= 8 urban votes !
Two, the delineation lines for constituencies shift according to its thinking. It is tantamount to shifting the goal-posts!
Three, the EC chairman stated last year that several UMNO members had not registered! Why UMNO alone ? Not even the other BN component Parties count, least of all the Opposition Parties !
Four, since his tenure has been extended, he has to kowtow to BN!
Free and fair election ? Radio, TV propoganda. Equal access to radio and TV ? Don’t dream! Most newspapers , mouthpiece of BN.
Will EC allow foreign observers before, during and after election ?
Winterman05
#11 by kritikus on Friday, 25 January 2008 - 9:44 pm
the country has already been plagued by rogue lawmakers, with kris weilding sheriffs ( in the old days gunslingers ) and a judiaciary for the corrupt, power-crazy, merciless, selfish, arrogant law enforcers who only know one thing GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT and slap them with ISA.
So what can the EC syncophants do but to be led by the nose and no questions asked, conveniently ingnoring the constitutional rights of the rakyat. what constitutional rights ???????????? who says there are any constitutional rights………..which brings back to our Laws of the WILD WILD WILD WEST OR RATHER EAST.
You talk too much, then my g….n talks
ALL YOU BLOGGERS OUT THERE INCLUDING ME, LETS VOTE FOR CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE.
#12 by ktteokt on Friday, 25 January 2008 - 9:48 pm
The Rukunegara may as well be treated as a piece of toilet paper fit for wiping asses. Since its inception in 1970, how much of its contents has been implemented by the government? I do not have to go to the full length of this “holy document” which we were made to swear under the hot sun during school assembly those days but just four simple words from this document – i.e. “membina masyarakat yang adil”. Tell me how much has been done towards this end for the last thirty plus years? How can the government achieve this “objective” if it insist on providing “bumiputra special rights”? Can bumiputra special right co-exist with a masyarakat yang adil? These two are at different ends of the line and it is impossible for them to meet.
So stop drumming on the contents of the Rukunegara, whether it is the preamble or its so-called principles.
#13 by Loyal Malaysian on Friday, 25 January 2008 - 10:00 pm
It is no shock to me. The Election Commission has taken upon itself to help the BN get their 2/3 majority in the elections. A caretaker government will not allow the BN to spend the rakyat’s money as if it is their own. A caretaker government will not be able to use all the government machinery at their disposal. So how can the EC stooges agree to your proposal?
#14 by LadyGodiva on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 12:04 am
“It is precisely because the clear and important distinctions between government, party and individual interests have been blurred …”
There is no reason why the blurring of the boundaries must now end.
#15 by merdeka on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 12:13 am
YB Lim,
I think this will be your last election and I urge all opposition members to go all out to capture as many seats as possible. I just can’t imagine what is left in the opposition party for the next 5 years if you don’t make it this time !!!!!!!!!
#16 by izrafeil on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 12:13 am
whAt??!! sINCE when this happened, which Perlembagaan they changed now?!!!!
Aiyo…..
Die Lor we small PeoPle!!
#17 by cheeran70 on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 12:42 am
Things are getting worst. The EC looks like a primate in a zoo, being fed and cared by schedule. So the lazy bump is playing the fiddle once again. Tune is well played to entertain the ‘power suppliers’ so some peoples’ needs can continuously be cared. How foolish are these people, and worst foolish are those who elected them. Time to change. Change for good. Let it be a wise change. People, change for a CHANGE!
#18 by HB Lim on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 1:18 am
That is the problem when we have square heads, robots and despots administering the country. They fall back on the law of the Constitution without thinking about its constitutionalism. The written law is at most an attempt at embodying or clothing its spirit in black letters. More important is the spirit of the law and in the law of constitution, it is the principles and concepts behind it – the constitutionalism of the constitution. Constitutionalism means limiting governmental powers. It means striking a balance within the three arms of government. It means also striking a balance between the powers of the government and the rights of the people. When a government insists on the Constitution per se without respecting its constitutionalism, the government tramples on the rights of the people and yet claims to be a government who follows the constitution. This is reflected in the letter by the EC to Uncle Kit. A letter by a bunch of robots acting on remote control by the government.
#19 by HB Lim on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 1:20 am
“It means striking a balance within the three arms of government.”
It should be “between” rather than “within”.
#20 by HB Lim on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 1:30 am
“I think this will be your last election” – merdeka
This is a sobering thought. Who will take over Uncle Kit? Who can fight for us the way Kit has been doing for so many decades? Kit, please don’t go.
#21 by mendela on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 2:09 am
Kit is not going any where yet!
Kit’s late sister passed away recently at 95.
So Kit will be around for at least another 30 years!
Kit will continue to terrorize the corrupt UMO MPs in Parliament for another quarter century!
#22 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 8:09 am
YB Kit has put the EC on the spot.
No the EC is not really guilty of “contemptuous dismissal of the concept of caretaker government†but rather of not understanding what it is, in the context of what Kit raised.
The fact that EC makes reference of “caretaker government’ to the Constitution shows it does not understand the concept.
[In matured societies with democratic culture, “caretaker government†is not something the constitution provides – there is no distinction between caretaker government and a normal one in terms of who are the people still running the show – but a ‘concept’ whereby, by convention, the outgoing government (just before polling) carries on without making any new law or taking any major policy initiating decisions and functions and generally acting as a neutral stakeholder government to ensure fair and clean election in which political parties contend on level playing ground].
Now the fact that EC does not understand this “concept†immediately casts doubt whether it can execute its functions properly to ensure a fair and clean election.
The fact that the main Opposition Party in the country (DAP) has to remind both the EC – and the Prime Minister – of the importance of a ‘caretaker government’ based on the principles of “integrity governance†pursuant to the National Integrity Plan (“NIPâ€) espoused by the same administration is testimony that both the EC and the ruling government suffer a major deficit of trust (from Opposition) in respect of its willingness to conduct a fair and clean election! Kit has delivered a double whammy blow to the EC and a glancing one to the ruling government.
Why doesn’t the Malaysian Integrity Institute, a supposedly independent agency tasked by the PM with the role of monitoring and coordinating implementation of the NIP, be asked also as to what it has to say about, and what advice or proposal it would give the government relating to its role as “caretaker government†for the coming elections?
Ultimately the concept of “caretaker government†is meaningless if there were by convention, no established practice and tradition of democracy and fair play.
Paradoxically, it is the governments that are least democratic that try to show case their ‘democratic credentials’ by boasting of care taker government, even to the extent of enshrining it in the written constitution – eg Pakistan or Bangladesh. [Here the military generals just appoint their own minions to the caretaker government and extend the period of caretaker government to postpone elections or to remove political dissidents labeled as subversives or terrorists supposedly in the interests of fair elections].
India, for example, is relatively more democratic in practice than Pakistan or Bangladesh and many other 3rd world countries and like first world nations (eg UK & US) does not need to show case democracy so badly that her constitution needs to make any provision for “caretaker†government. And yet in the best ‘Westminster’ parliamentary tradition has put into effect this convention of interim “caretaker government†pending election by the “classic case of the disqualification of Indian Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi who misused the caretaker government trust in flying around in government helicopter for party electioneering campaign†as per Kit.
#23 by Count Dracula on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 9:03 am
“THE idea of holding free and fair elections under a neutral caretaker government sounds attractive for two reasons: a level playing field for all contestants and an administration which is entirely neutral safeguarding the integrity of the ballot. Both these assumptions, even though well-intentioned, have adverse implications for the future of democracy.â€
http://www.dawn.com/2007/10/22/op.htm
Caretaker governments are usually a feature of new democracies. Malaysia does not fall in this category.
Where in our Federal Constitution of 1957 is there a requirement that Malaysia should be placed in the care of a caretaker government when elections are being held?
#24 by Count Dracula on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 9:08 am
“I have received a shocking response from the Election Commission declaring that it does not recognize the concept of caretaker government when Parliament is dissolved to ensure free, fair and clean general election.” Kit
I do not think that that was the meaning of their reply. Their reply was merely to point out the absence of any reference to a caretaker government in the Federal Constitution of 1957.
#25 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 11:30 am
///The fifth principle of Rukunegara committed the government and every Malaysian to “Good Behaviour and Morality†but Malaysia has never been subjected to a more intense attack of the most brazen disregard and contempt for fundamental decencies of good behaviour, morality and the principles of good governance as in recent times – with the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape in the past two weeks providing the most blatant and flagrant of examples/// – YB Kit.
Which is why Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape (“RCâ€), the composition of which have been a matter of public misgivings as regards the suitability of one or two of its members, should at all times conduct its enquiry, investigation and deliberations in a manner in accord with highest standards of probity and transparency.
For the RC is not just charged with responsibility of fact finding on authenticity if the Lingam video clip but the larger purpose engaging the authorities in restoring public confidence in the institution of Judiciary.
It is therefore with disconcerting surprise that we latest learn that the RC will not be “that open anymore†allegedly to prevent baseless and wild allegations from making way into the news.
According to news report (The Star 26th Jan), “it’s not going to be that open anymore, like previously. It’s not nice for the news to come out first and then only it is (evidence) decided whether it is relevant to the terms of reference of the inquiry,†commission secretary Datuk Abdullah Sani Ab Hamid said. “The commission must determine first the questions to be asked so that unrelated matters are not brought up.†The commission wanted to make sure that allegations that had nothing to do with the video clip would not be included as evidence, he said after the panel heard submissions behind closed-door proceedings yesterday. See Link: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/1/26/nation/20134090&sec=nation
Yes, it is the RC’s prerogative – even duty – to determine whether allegations are relevant to the video clip and to exclude from recorded evidence that which had nothing to do with the video clip but why should the process of its making such determination be closed to the press and public and shrouded in secrecy?
If it were closed to the public, how do we know whether the RC whose expenses are paid from public funds, is making an impartial determination as to what is relevant and what is not or otherwise not allowing the freest possible flow of information for motives other than purely the interest of public?
It is true that RC has powers under the Commission of Enquiry Act 1951 to admit or exclude the press or public from the enquiry or any part thereof but that power should be exercised sparingly only in the most extenuating of circumstances.
Unless transparency and disclosure are present, public confidence in the RC’s proceedings and by extension the larger issue of the Judiciary, will be diminished when it is perceived by public that there’s more to hide. It is noted from The Star’s report that “by then, many members of the public who had stood waiting outside were complaining about the transparency of the proceedings ..
#26 by Tickler on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 1:04 pm
My family, friends and I have lost all confidence in this RCI headed by Haidar.
#27 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 7:40 pm
Can the Commissioners of the Royal Commission make up their mind and come out open whether this is a public inquiry or a private (secret) inquiry, (because) from standpoint of confidence of the public we can’t have an enquiry that is “hybridâ€, sometimes public, and sometimes private based only upon the determination of the Commissioners or some of them that the public have no access to adjudge whether such determination is right or fair…..
According to Malaysiakini’s report filed by Beh Lih Yi on Jan 25, 08 11:09am under caption title “Day 9: Closed-door hearing†–
“It is believed that the lawyers, in making their submissions, made references to certain personalities and their alleged involvement in court case-fixings as well as judge-fixings. It is also believed that Puravalen (Anwar’s lawyer) argued on the importance to bring in two ‘secret witnesses’ – codenamed ‘Mr X’ and ‘Mr Y’ – that Anwar intended to introduce as they could give evidence of judicial fixing and corruption in the judiciary. The two ‘secret witnesses’ are expected to be another younger brother of Lingam – Rajendram Vellupillai – whose identity was unwittingly revealed by one commissioner – and former Bank Negara assistant governor Abdul Murad Khalidâ€.
On the subject of judge-fixings as distinct from court case-fixings, if the terms of reference for the present Royal Commission cover judge-fixings but not court case-fixings, then the terms of reference should be expanded to cover the latter or otherwise form another Royal commission for court case-fixings.
One cannot avoid the latter when DSAI comes out openly and says he has 2 two ‘secret witnesses’ – codenamed ‘Mr X’ and ‘Mr Y’ – that could give evidence on this – not unless the government is prepared to say openly that court case-fixings and corruption within the judiciary (once upon the time conceded publicly by then CJ Ahmad Fairuz) are not important enough to be addressed as (say) judicial-fixings in the Lingam Video clip.
The fact is, as a matter of public concern, the issue of judge-fixings is inextricably entwined with the issue of court case-fixings, somewhat like hand and glove, and I don’t see how one can pay attention to one by invoking a RC for it and ignoring the other one!
#28 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 8:07 pm
Sorry the preceding comment has been posted by mistake under this thread when it should be rightly under the later thread of “Do we need a RCI on RCI on Lingam Tape to restore confidence in judiciary?” on January 26th, 2008. It has sincxe been re-posted on right thread.
#29 by DarkHorse on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 11:05 pm
You confused me, Jeffery. Thought I was on the wrong planet!