Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.
– Albert Einstein
Parliamentary democracy is glibly accepted as a government of the people and by the people. The Opposition is required to oppose an oppressive government while insisting on checks and balances so that the rule of law is not compromised.
The Opposition is also the shadow government in that it can step into the role of government once a no-confidence motion is passed in Parliament which decidedly dismantles the government of the day. Nature of government can become a miserable habit.
We pliantly adopted a written constitution from a nation that does not have one except for legislation that ousts judicial review. Speaking against the government, in the House of Commons, was considered treason (Eliot’s Case) in 1629!
Sir Ivor Jennings, one of the members of the Reid Commission, wrote in The British Constitution (n 20) 86, that “Opposition members are rightly said to be the most vigilant public parliamentary check on the misuse of power by the government.”
Which brings us the present-day Opposition, courtesy of Perikatan Nasional (PN). Mind you, Wikipedia says “Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system and is based on the Westminster model.”
Does the PN fulfil its parliamentary role today? Does it really bring the government of the day to account, or is it opposing for the sake of opposing? It is certainly not on hallowed constitutional ground.
The Holy Quran (English version), in Chapter 4, verse 60, makes clear that “Muslims must obey the law of the land as anything to the contrary would mean that they are not obeying the Prophet (PBUH) or their religion.”
Obedience to leaders who care for and administer the earth as best as possible is also commanded in the Holy Quran (English version) in al-Nisa verse 59.
What if our Muslim leaders, in government and in the Opposition, are not caring for the people and administering as best as possible? Again, the Holy Quran (English version) at 3:103 demands that Muslims be not divided among themselves.
If those ruling over us will not obey the rule of the law, or the supreme law of the land (Federal Constitution), will they at least listen to and obey higher law as espoused in religious texts?
The rule of law has not a viable force in Malaysia. Constitutional amendments can make a mockery of any law because interpretations dismantle and destroy principles. The Federal Constitution places the Legislature and the Executive in a super-control pedestal with a lead foot on the accelerator.
PN MPs were very dissatisfied in March 2024 about the proposed citizenship laws. They demanded that the Parliamentary Special Select Committee vet the proposed Bill. The Bill passed, so, what good came out of this when the “operation of law” requirement had hastily morphed into “registration” to qualify for Malaysian citizenship.
When the Opposition Pakatan Harapan (PH) unexpectedly won GE-14, Sabah and Sarawak were promised equal partner status. PH set up a Special Cabinet Committee on the pith and substance of the MA63 treaty. Unfortunately, the two-thirds majority in Parliament evaporated. The treaty remained tattered.
When PN assumed power after toppling PH, the equal partner status went into limbo when the Officials Secrets Act put a permanent lid on the Special Cabinet Committee on MA63 as directed by PN.
This is a classic case of the Opposition becoming the government, and then becoming the Opposition when the existing Opposition upends the former Opposition that assumed government control, and by doing so becomes the government of the day!
The upshot of all this mess is axiomatic in that parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy – Westminster model – does not augur well for Malaysian adat where religion and religious texts provide a higher law. Obedience to conscience and religious edicts is absent.
And in 2022, we witnessed a coalition government, the first of its kind not contemplated in the Federal Constitution. PMX was once a fierce and firm Opposition advocate, but today has become a fastidious fence-sitter.
A careful examination of the prevailing Malaysian political atmosphere pays tribute to Winston Churchill’s observation that “some men change their party for the sake of their principles; others their principles for the sake of their party.”
In a 24-carat dyed-in-the-wool democracy, Walter Lippmann observed that “the opposition is not only tolerated as constitutional but must be maintained because it is indispensable.”
“Opposition”, “first-past-the-post, “separation of powers”, “basic structure doctrine”, are not mentioned in Article 160 (Interpretation) Federal Constitution. So, does Lippmann make sense about the Opposition being constitutional?
Article 162(6) Federal Constitution bestows fine-tuning powers and judicial review of legislation where transformation and change are not confused. The scars of the 1988 judicial nightmare are hopefully no longer visible even if memories persist.
Any successful leader of government must have it in him or her to bond with the people as President Ronald Reagan did. Whether Malaya and Malaysia ever came close to having a leader who bonded with the rakyat is still unknown. But statesmanship is a known quality.
Meanwhile, the disposition of the Opposition is lost in translation. Malaysians must stop the government that is engaged in diminishing and dismantling democracy.
Malaysia needs transformation where new developments in governance benefit everyone. Change, on the other hand, keeps the unwelcome past alive as an unwanted memory. We have yet to get there for the sake of stability.
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of New Sarawak Tribune.
