Job function of a Member of Parliament

I will first use a commercial or industrial corporation as an example as that is what most people can relate to the easiest.

Each job has its function, or job description or whatever you call it. Essentially, it defines what each person holding the job is supposed to do. A janitor's job function is just to keep a place clean and tidy and no more. At the other end is a member of a board of director whose duties are to attend board of directors meetings, discuss, make policy and other very important decisions, and set the direction in which the company is to go. These decisions made by the board of directors are very important and can either set a company to great success or send it to bankruptcy. Because their job function is so important, they are normally very highly paid. A member of board of directors does not stoop down so low as to go do the job of a janitor. They have different job functions.

Similarly, Members or Parliament are like members of the board of directors of a very huge company. In this case, the company is the country. What they do in the Parliament can make a country great or send it down the gutters. Their most important job is in the Parliament, not taking care of clogged drains and pot holes. These are jobs for the City Halls or Municipality Councils. These are important, but more important are crucial issues that affect the future of the country. These matters can only be settled in the Parliament.

One more important thing. When a Member of Parliament first enters the Parliament, he or she has to make an oath to uphold, defend and preserve the Constitution. The Constitution of a country is its supreme law and is a sacred document. It is not meant to be amended just so someone, for example, the Chairman of an Election Commission, can continue to serve another term.

Now in this coming election, when you cast your vote, you must keep these in mind. You must see if the candidate, if he or she was the former Member of Parliament, have he or she fulfilled that most important job function and have uphold, defend and preserve the Constitution, something which he or she had taken an oath to do. For greater details, refer to Interview with Billi Lim, independent candidate for Kelana Jaya (click BACK button to get back to this page). How many times our Constitution had been amended was discussed in that post. In another post Haris Ibrahim's speech at the SS2 Petaling Jaya ceramah (click BACK button to get back to this page), Haris said "BN (Barisan Nasional) has been dismantling our document (Constitution) systematically. In the process, taken away our rights. In the process, taking away our Constitutional Institutions.

The statement below was taken from PJ Utara: A choice between local service and parliamentary voice:

---

Chew (Chew Mei Fun) remains unperturbed by Opposition claims that she is more concerned about drains than speaking up on her constituents’ behalf in parliament. “They can say things which sound very ideal but in the end can they deliver?” she says. “I believe that with hard work and my track record, I have set a strong foundation and the support for me is there.”

---

The question we need to ask ourselves is, what Chew Mei Fun did when all those bills to amend the Constitution were tabled at the Parliament. Did she take into the consideration of whether her Constituent wants it? What about the future of the country? Deliver? Deliver what? Do we want better roads and drains or a better future for the country? Roads and drains can only last so long. What happens after that? Malaysia had been blessed with oil and plantations and thus had been cushioned from the flawed policies that can bring ruin to the economy. What happens when we run out of oil? I asked this to a person who claimed to be an assistant of our caretaker Deputy Prime Minister. His answer - "we will cross the bridge when we come to it." Can we afford that? Is that the way to run a country. Solve a problem only when we are faced with it? Is not wiser to take that into account when we make long term plans for the country?

The Barisan Members of Parliament are all allocated millions of ringgits to spend on their Constituent. The opposition Members of Parliament are given none. Is that fair?

We have to ask ourselves, which is more important - the future of the country, the reputation and independence of the Judiciary, or the roads and drains? When we have a problem which can only be solved in the court, we want to go to a court where we have confidence the judge's decision will be based on the Constitution and on the law. Do we have that? I do not know. But I have heard that when foreign investors draw up contracts, they specify that disputes should be settled in Singapore or United Kingdom. True or not I do not know. You will have to do your own research.

Think very hard these few days before polling date when we cast our vote. Vote for the candidate who will uphold, defend and preserve our Constitution and not let it be amended to suit the political situation.

Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Malaysia

Got this via an email forward and requested to forward to all Malaysians. I figured the most efficient way is to publish it as an open letter to our Prime Minister, maybe also the Chairman of the "Independent" Election Commission:

TO:-

Dato' Seri Abdullah bin Haji Ahmad Badawi
Pejabat Perdana Menteri,
Blok Utama, Bangunan Perdana Putra,
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan,
62502 PUTRAJAYA
No.Fax: 03-88884333

C:C :-

TAN SRI DATO' SERI HJ. AB. RASHID BIN AB. RAHMAN

Chairman Election Commission of Malaysia

Aras 4 & 5, Block C7, Kompleks C,
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan
62690 PUTRAJAYA.
Tel : (603)-8885 6500
Fax : (603)-8888 9117

And to all beloved Malaysians,

March 11 -08

Dear Prime Minister,

First of all, I would like to welcome you in to the new era of Malaysians politics. The old money, racial and UMNO Putera politics is no more valid in this country where people choose freedom of rights and a democratic process. Many reasons have caused the big waves of change in your government. Some of the points are as below. I hope this will help you to restructure your government.

1. The peaceful assemblies being disrupted by the police for your own political gain.
2. The use of ISA on innocent Malaysians.
3. The on going corruption.
4. The failure of the judiciary system.
5. The involvement of government officials in the murder of Altantunya.
6. The federal constitution law is violated especially in the freedom of religion under article 11, example in the case of Subashini, Lina Joy, Holy Scriptures and Bibles banned from entering the country, the movie Passion of Christ being banned in Malaysia and the demolishment of holy temples.
7. The one sight media coverage.
8. Discrimination against the Indians.
9. Most of the government project are given to the UMNO Putera`s and fly.
10. The indecent and racial remarks made by your Ministers.
11. The keris issue by Hishamudin
12. No transparency in the accounts administration.
13. And of course much of the noise made by the empty vessel, Khairy.

Barisan Harapan Rakyat (Coalition of Hope for Malaysians)

Vote DAP (Rocket)	Vote PKR

Just Change it

Barisan has abused the two-third majority and amended the Constitution 50 times, many amendments containing multiple amendments, adding up to a total of 700 amendments!!!!! According to Haris Ibrahim at a SS2 Petaling Jaya ceramah (click BACK button to get back to this page), "A Member of Parliament upon joining the Parliament, take an oath to defend, uphold and preservere the Constitution. However, every BN (Barisan Nasional) MP has cooperated in dismantling our document systematically. In the process, taken away our rights. In the process, taking away our Constitutional Institutions" (edited).

He also gave a battle cry "Barisan Harapan Rakyat (Coalition of Hope for Malaysians)". Let us hope that this can become a reality and stop the rot in Malaysia. In the meantime, the two-third majority MUST BE TAKEN AWAY from the BN (Barisan Nasional). Of course, we hope that this "Barisan Harapan Rakyat (Coalition of Hope for Malaysians)" can form the next government after polling day.

Why you should vote against the Barisan this coming election

Haris Ibrahim started People's Parliament and the purpose is to know our Member of Parliament, or what I think should be more accurate, the likely candidates of our constituencies.

Why you should not vote for the Barisan

With this objective in mind, I made an appointment to see the current Member of Parliament of my constituency, and we did see the Member of Parliament. My very first question was: "How can Barisan Member of Parliaments truly represent their constituencies when they are bound by the whip ALL THE TIME. What this mean is that Barisan Member of Parliament are bound to vote for all proposals from the Executive irrespective of merits, irrespective of what their constituencies really want, irrespective of their conscience. They are also obliged to vote against ALL proposals from the oppositions, also irrespective of merits.

We have seen how this worked when the opposition proposed to refer the "tutup satu mata" (close one eye) Member of Parliament for Jasin for trying to influence an officer of the Custom over a shipment of undersized logs from Indonesia.

Let me state here the response of the Member of Parliament of my constituency, a Barisan Member of Parliament, when this question of the whip came up. It was a pretty smart answer. According to the Member of Parliament, all proposals before they are tabled in the Parliament have to go through a long process of consultations with Cabinet Ministers, with NGOs (Non-government organizations) with stakeholders, etc. ( did not hear the voters of my constituency being mentioned unfortunately. Now I have my own opinion about consultations as people may be consulted, but would their opinions be taken into considerations?

There is more to this. The Constitution of a country is a very sacred document and should not be amended for trivial reasons. When the proposal to increase the retirement age of the Chairman of the Election Commission was rushed through the Parliament, I requested an urgent appointment and it was kindly granted. I asked: "In this case, did the consultation took place, if so, how long did it take and who were consulted." The response was: "When I told you this, I was only referring to MY Ministr." So it is now fact and no longer opinion. Proposals do get tabled in the Parliament without much consultations and in the case of amendment to the Constitution, it was passed with the Barisan overwhelming two-third majority.

Then there is a more recent case. The Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police was established by the King on 4 February 2004 under the Commission of Inquiry Act 1950 , after much hard work, prepared a 576 page report which was submitted to the Prime Minister on 29 April, 2004. The Royal Commission recommended establishment of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) aimed at dealing with complaints regarding the police and seeking to improve the professionalism of the force and to ensure that doctrines, laws, rules and procedures are observed and implemented by the police. There were many recommendations, and among the very crucial recommendations were that no serving or retired member of the Police Force be appointed to the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC). After sitting on the report for many years, just before the impending election, a proposal was suddenly tabled in the Parliament to establish the Special Complaints Commission instead, which many described as a much watered down version of the IPCMC, and caught many by surprised. There members of the Royal Commission were so incensed that they came out in public to object against the substitution of the IPCMC with the Special Complaints Commission. Tunku Aziz, one of the member of the Royal Commission, described it as a slap in the face. Edmund Bon, Bar Council Human Rights Committee Chairman, called the Special Complaints Commission a POST BOX. Their function is merely to receive complaints, study it, then forward it to the relevant departments. Thus the Commission practically does nothing but add a further layer of bureaucracy to the process, increasing manpower, cost and time. What is worst are the members who would be appointed to the are from serving very senior staff of the Police which the Commission is supposed to "police". Plus to make the "Fake IPCMC" appear "better" than the real "IPCMC", it scope was proposed to be extended to all other enforcement agencies, including the ACA (Anti-corruption act). And guess what? The head honcho of the ACA is supposed to also sit on the "Fake IPCMC". How can one expect the police or the ACA "police" themself? Who can dare to bring complaints if the very person who sits in the "Fake IPCMC" is involved?

No, it is clear as daylight. Proposals do not go through a "long process of consultations". And even if consultations did take place, it is also clear that many of the real and justified objections had not been taken into consideration. Here is one very good reason why you should not vote for the Barisan. There are many others, but we will leave it for another day.

What are the alternatives

I think I will have to get back to my "real work" and update this later or publish a new post.

Isn’t a peaceful assembly within the law?

This is a response to a speech by Perak Raja Muda Raja Nazrin Shah’s speech urging Malaysians to respect law and order. It was in regards to the provision in the Malaysian Constitution for free speech, free expression and free assembly, and a further clause that says any law or regulation that goes against the spirit of the Constitution is invalid. So is the requirement to get a police permit to hold a peace assembly valid or not valid? The response was an attempt to get an answer. Here is the response to Perak Raja Muda Raja Nazrin Shah’s speech in theSun:

Isn’t a peaceful assembly within the law?

I refer to your report on Perak Raja Muda Raja Nazrin Shah’s speech (front page, Dec 30) urging Malaysians to respect law and order. However, I would like to ask this question which has troubled me for a long time, and I fervently hope that Raja Nazrin and his father Sultan Azlan read this.

Both Raja Nazrin and Sultan Azlan are highly qualified lawyers and are highly respected (Sultan Azlan was a former Lord President), so would be eminently qualified to clarify the issues I hope to raise.

The Constitution provides for free speech, free expression, free assembly and any law or act which goes against the spirit of the Constitution is invalid. I had the opportunity to ask former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas if the requirement for a police permit for any assembly of five or more is valid.

His response was "it is dicey". He cited some amendments and some clause in the amended Constitution. Asked for Tun’s opinion: "The police have the right to regulate, but not to prevent."

Now, when Malaysians participate in a peaceful assembly, are they respecting or not respecting the law?

I hope to get some answers through your now highly respected newspaper. If not from the royalty, then hopefully from the Malaysian Bar or its members or any lawyer.

Malaysians have to resort to peaceful assemblies and protests because numerous attempts to change things and right wrongs have not met with the desired action.

by
Loyal but concerned Malaysian, PJ

Isn’t a peaceful assembly within the law?

From Letters: theSun, Tuesday 4 December 2007, "Speak Up", page 18:

I refer to your report on Perak Raja Muda Raja Nazrin Shah’s speech (front page, Dec 30) urging Malaysians to respect law and order. However, I would like to ask this question which has troubled me for a long time, and I fervently hope that Raja Nazrin and his father Sultan Azlan read this.

Both Raja Nazrin and Sultan Azlan are highly qualified lawyers and are highly respected (Sultan Azlan was a former Lord President), so would be eminently qualified to clarify the issues I hope to raise.

The Constitution provides for free speech, free expression, free assembly and any law or act which goes against the spirit of the Constitution is invalid. I had the opportunity to ask former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas if the requirement for a police permit for any assembly of five or more is valid.

His response was "it is dicey". He cited some amendments and some clause in the amended Constitution. Asked for Tun’s opinion: "The police have the right to regulate, but not to prevent."

Now, when Malaysians participate in a peaceful assembly, are they respecting or not respecting the law?

I hope to get some answers through your now highly respected newspaper. If not from the royalty, then hopefully from the Malaysian Bar or its members or any lawyer.

Malaysians have to resort to peaceful assemblies and protests because numerous attempts to change things and right wrongs have not met with the desired action.

Parliamentary Roundtable to reaffirm Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as the official religion and not an Islamic State: Report

The Parliamentary Roundtable to reaffirm Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as the official religion and not an Islamic State was successful executed, though with a slight delay because another group had occupied the chamber a bit longer than their allotted time. The panelists were, from left to right:

Y.B. Karpal Singh, the Lion of Gelugor (absent from photo because he was in the wheelchair, not on the platform).
DAP National Chairman
M.P. Bukit Gelugor

Honey Tan
AWAM (All Women's Action Society)

Dr. Farish A. Noor
Political scientist and historian at the Centre for Modern Orient Studies, Berlin

Malik Imtiaz Sawar
HAKAM (National Human Rights Society)

Y. B. Lim Kit Siang
Parliament Opposition Leader

Datuk Vatthilingam
MCCBHCST (Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism)

Lim Guan Eng
DAP Secretary General

Dr. Nasir
Protem Chairman
Party Socialist Malaysia

Andrew Choo
Human Rights Committee
Bar Council Malaysia

Parliament Roundtable to reaffirm Malaysia is a secular State and not an Islamic State panelists

Here is the missing Lion of Gelugor - Y.B. Karpal Singh (behind him are some journalists, probably including one from Malaysiakini as the event is reported in that online newspaper):

Lion of Gelugor - Y.B. Karpal Singh

Below is a photo of some of the participants (minus me plus some cut off from the left hand corner). I am not a journalist, but perhaps trying to be one. A true and impartial journalist is said to report events as the are, not as them want to be Unfortunately events like protests against petrol price increase drew large crowd but events involving crucial issues like this drew a pathetic crowd. I was told the Barisan M.P.'s and others were invited but declined. Would have loved them to be present to rebut the arguments put forth by the panelists and the participants, but apparently they prefer to ignore such events (the points put forth are hard to dispute in my opinion) but probably prefer to blank out mainstream media coverage of such events and maybe just dismiss them as nonsense if they appear on the Internet rather than rebutting them.

Participants at the Parliament Roundtable to reaffirm Malaysia is a secular State and not an Islamic State participants

As I said above, I am not a journalist and don't have a tape recorder nor can I take notes in short-hand, but scribble what I can. So what I report may not be exactly accurate (some may be from my recollection or even my own interpretation. My apologies to the panelists if I have quoted them inaccurately). I hope to contact them to examine this post and correct me wherever I am wrong or missed out something important. This is the first time I am doing something like this and if a future opportunities come, from the experience gained, I hope to do better next time.

Y.B. Lim Kit Siang started off the discussions summarising why Malaysia cannot be considered an Islamic state, then passed the microphone to Malik Imtiaz Sawar.

Some points raised by Malik Imtiaz Sawar

Declaration of Malaysia as an Islamic State cannot be taken lightly, but have serious legal implications. In a secular state, the Constitution is the supreme law . In a weak democracy (which is what Malaysian is now), the Executive controls the Parliament. Rule can be by decree by a powerful few. The Judiciary is controlled by the Executive. The statement by the honorable Deputy Prime Statement has no basis and is an irresponsible statement.

This is not part of Malik Imtiaz Sawar's speech at the Parliamentary Roundtable, but is what I believed he published as part of this preparation for the Roundtable. You can read more about his thoughts on this issue at Not just a matter of labels

Some points raised by Y.B. Karpal Singh

What state are we? The documents available showed clearly Malaysia is a secular state.

Some points raised by Farish A. Noor, the internationally renowned scholar

In his study of various countries who got Independence from the colonists, he found some disturbing trends and similarity. A weak democracy can lead to a rule by decree. He gave an interesting example: A deputy decreed that the world is round and no one is to dispute it nor discuss it. His superior came up with a slightly watered down version - the world is neither flat nor round, and I suppose no one can question that either. So is the world flat or round?

He said there is a pattern that the more corrupt the leaders are, and the greater their credibility drops, the more religious they will want to appear. He said no true Islamic state will support (a very draconian) ISA (Internal Security Act).

"Centuries of Muslim legal scholarship have argued against detention without trial, and yet we have politicians summarily applied Islamic ethics to which we cannot, beyond any stretch of the imagination, reach the even minimum basic ethical requirement of any Muslim theology."

Some try to demonise the definition of a secular state as anti-religion. He says a secular state is not anti-religion (further notes not legible). The only important thing in a secular Malaysia is that every Malaysian is considered equal.

Farish Noor's speech is reported in Malaysiakini at Nation descending into sectarian politics. You have to subscribe to Malaysiakini to read the report in full.

Some points raised by Mr. Lim Guan Eng

We Malaysians have been given many promises. Religious freedom? There is no (real) religious freedom. Give financial aids to temples and churches? Some even had to wait for years to get approval and are forced to go to court to get building approval. So what religious freedom? Most wouldn't even dare to ask for financial aid, much less expect to get any.

And why would the whole government machinery be brought against a 24 year old Taiwanese student Lee Meng Chee? To distract attention from something? He said if there is any action taken against him, Karpal Singh will defend him. He quoted the well known saying about the freedom of expression - 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'

Some points raised by Honey from AWAM

There have been many cases of injustice been perpetrated against women, and many of them steamed from the Syariah. She quoted the cases of Sharmala, Lina Joy, Revathi, the refusal of the Parliament to make marital rape as a crime, based on the Syariah law.

Some points raised by Harcharan Singh

A secular state means all citizens are equal. That is not so in an Islamic state. Many are denied justice because of Islam. Some judges also refused to give justice to some people because of Islam.

Some points raiased by Datuk Vatthilingam

He remembered that Malaysia had always been a secular state. Why now the declaration that Malaysia is an Islamic state again? Is it for politial mileage, to try to win votes for the coming election, to distract attention from something more serious? The government is continuing to use race and religion to try to run the country their own way. There are subtle moves to .....

Some points raised by Andrew Choo

He said, some ask why the statement that Malaysia is an Islamic state is so important. I think he said something that statements like this can have legal implications and can lead to undesirable consequences, like how other countries are going to view us and interact with us. I think he also said it may also embolden some religious zealots in making things difficult for non-Muslims (and perhaps even moderate Muslims). He said the test of democracy is how will it protects the weakest components of a nation.

Declaration

At the end of the Roundtable, Y.B. Lim Kit Siang read out a prepared declaration and asked those who agree with the declaration shows it by a show of hand. Those who agreed signed the declarations and handed them in, and I supposed they will be handed over to the proper authorities. I don't know what effect that will have, but at least, we have done our part.