Someone recently asked me two questions about the Attorney General which I could not answer.
The first question related to “why the Attorney General and IGP ‘interfered with’ the elections after it has been called, and insisted on changing the rules?”
Do the AG and IGP have any such authority within a jurisdiction of interim governance, on a subject which was almost under the full jurisdiction of the Elections Commission?
This too especially after the GE has been called, and the operative policy for the GE already announced?
Who has or holds the policy imperative on this indelible ink episode? Does the AG have such an “interpretive authority?”
Why should the EC chairperson concede to the “mere opinions” of two other public servants, also appointed by the Agong? Why did these two therefore “interfere” with the EC’s work? Why did they keep quiet while the cabinet had not said no to that same proposition and the EC went all the way and even bothered to even obtain a fatwa for its use?
Where was the real security threat then? Where is it now? What have the police done to demonstrate the reality of the threat based on a “so-called police report?”
Or, like I have come to believe now, are police threats like these merely ploys used to make selective persecution without a persecution? Empty threats!
Why not a coalition government?
The second question related to why the AG or the respective legal advisors did not give good advice the Sultans of Kedah, Perak and Selangor when there was no absolute simple majority?
Should not the first right of refusal be given to BN, regardless of how small their numbers were? After all, the Pakatan Rakyat is not yet a registered organization whereas the BN is? Could they have not asked Umno and BN to form a “coalition government?”
In many states, like currently in Thailand or even Pakistan, where no one party has a clear and simple authority, the lead party could be asked to see if they can form the government.
Why was this not done in the case of these three state governments? Maybe Umno and DAP could have formed a government in Perak and Selangor.
I am not being cheeky either! This, while it may appear to be only an academic question, may have served the majority interests of the people of the state better. For example, this option also became obvious when PAS offered to jointly form the government in Terengganu.
And, why not should that not become an option? If there was in fact a by-election in the state because of an impasse, I firmly believe that the people of Terengganu would vote PAS the second time around; having seen the continued lack of courtesy by Umno against the royalty.
But, thankfully the Umno supreme council now understands the real issues on the ground, and therefore reason has prevailed.
Skeleton in our cupboards
Even more interestingly to me, now that the ownership of The Sun daily has changed, former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad has finally returned to writing for that newspaper.
Mahathir’s voice is the older clear and equally persuasive person he has always been. But, interestingly, he has chosen to disagree with the AG’s views on the “role of the rulers on the appointment of the political leader of the state governance”.
He appears to take on the de facto law minister Zaid Ibrahim on his other role with the Muslim lawyers group.
Former Bar Council presidents are also speaking up to this issue. Zainur Zakaria has also called on Zaid for the same issue. Param Cumaraswamy has argued that a mere apology is on the Salleh Abbas debacle is not good enough.
Mahathir says, he did nothing wrong, and we should ask the tribunal to answer why they found the Lord President guilty.
Personally, I am delighted by the serious quality of the on-going dialogue. There is a scriptural principle which teaches that “wrong doer should not cast the first stone”!
Or, the English equivalent is, “let the pot not call the kettle black”.
I am sure all of us have some skeleton in our cupboards but, as the public interest is at discourse here, to me, any voice of reason on the subject has a right to participate and continue in the dialogue.
And, all the differing voices should be allowed. We simply need to ignore the irrelevant one. I am therefore personally glad for the public space of dialogue opened up and still retained by the Pak Lah administration.
Blog quality of media
To my mind, for the first time in Malaysia, the “wayang kulit phenomenon” is dissipating in the public spaces of life.
Front screen reality is now almost the same as the back screen version of reality but without the “blog quality of media”.
What do I mean by blog quality? A weblog, often shortened to a blog is really the personal reflection and diary of the author. I am not a blogger in that classic sense. I am only an internet media columnist with Malaysiakini, an internet newspaper who operates without a formal printing permit, because the virtual space cannot be licensed.
But by blog quality, I mean that quality of editorial protection which is greatly reduced. For example the defamation judgment against blogger Rja Petra Kamaruddin is a case in point.
He is now guilty for displaying someone else’s views on his blog and has to take the rap for it.
Knowing Raja Petra’s views and strategies, he must have some radical approach to ward off this judgment.
Ordinary mortals like us, who have no blue blood, better play more safely and strictly by the rules of good Malaysian governance.
That is why I keep to Malaysiakini although many have asked me to start a blog. At least, my emotions do not get away without being edited.
Agreeing to disagree
Whither then Umno, BN and improved governance in Malaysia? Actually, we are getting into a very interesting phase of our development of democracy. But the media and the differences of opinion expressed publicly is a most important factor. Why cannot Malaysians agree to disagree, agreeably?
Why are we pretending that after 50 years of so-called merdeka, we are not independent yet?
Independent of, or, from what? Are we really that scared of our own shadows? Are we that under-nourished with information and knowledge, that we have to be spoon-fed with garbage?
Come on Malaysia, as someone wrote, the Malaysians Incorporated have demonstrated that we can make up our own minds and deliver very sophisticated views. Therefore it is very encouraging that even the mainstream media are now reverting towards their clientele who are also saying enough is enough.
There is already a boycott of the Star being propagated by civil society groups for their categorical and extremely biased and undignified reporting.
One Malaysiakini columnist has even suggested that “the people buy up these newspapers” and make them truly free and open with views. But, actually MCA can do the same thing.
I remember once, when Wong Chun Wai of the Star wrote against the former PM’s “corrupt administration”, the editor was effectively told to not write anymore on the subject.
He was scheduled to speak at a congress we organized and he had to withdraw at the last minute. Is this really necessary? Is not the word always more powerful than the sword? Does not the word also develop and build, unlike the sword?
Why then cannot we encourage and even stimulate the rational and objective expression of views? Even peaceful demonstrations are really no harm to anyone; just approve them and give strict rules to abide by.
Is that not the maturing of a democracy? Time to move on Malaysia; agreeing to disagree agreeably.