Saturday, February 21, 2009

NST CrossTalk: 'A minority govt never survives'

As the Perak crisis continues to fester, former menteri besar Tan Sri Ramli Ngah Talib and Ipoh Barat MP M. Kulasegaran hash out their opinions on the current conflict. KOH LAY CHIN listens in as the two Perak sons talk about rotten eggs, rudeness to royals and agreeing to disagree

Kulasegaran: Tan Sri, you know what’s happening in Perak and you're the former menteri besar.What saddens me and many Malaysians is the grab of power. How can we, in this modern age and with our democratic system, ever agree to this kind of thing?Doesn't the Barisan Nasional respect the wishes of the voters? I'm astonished, I'm shocked

Ramli: Well in any discussion on the Perak crisis I think we have to relate it to the various responsibilities of the various institutions to get a clear picture. I’m afraid I was in the midst of it — before the swearing-in ceremony, I was in the convoy.

And we were stopped, stones were thrown at my car, and others too. And when we came back, this crowd also showed their hostility to us by showing the (soulssoles of their) feet and shouting "Takde Otak" (no brains) and “Zalim” (cruel). Now this shows a lack of understanding of the situation. Earlier I said we must relate it to the responsibilities of the various institutions. Now to me, this is a case of the sultan exercising his powers under the constitution of Perak. That is to appoint the menteri besar from among those, who in his opinion, which he understands it, who has the confidence of the assembly.

When there was this defection, BN had the majority in the of this assembly was given to the BN and the sultan appointed one from among them to beof BN to the MB. This is provided under the constitution. This is his duty, to appoint. So, going back to the gist of your question, well now it doesn't look nice. I agree, it doesn't look nice for the BN government to form a government through defection. I agree this is not the best way of forming a government., this is not the best way. But which party, that is not in power, which has been given the power through defection, would reject that?

Kulasegaran: But Tan Sri I think we will not disagree with the fact that any party also should be more than ready to go and test its popularity with the masses. Don't you think so? You have been elected before, and I'm a third term MPmember of parliament, one of the things that is most important and dearest to us are the voters, and the voters have given a very clear mandate. In fact 54 per cent of the voters in Perak in the 2008 election voted in favour of Pakatan, only 46 per cent for through Barisan. It’s so clear. And I think even if they have taken power, don't you think they should have said “Okay, let's be gentlemen, and let's go face the masses, the voters.” Why are they reluctant and why are they scared?

Ramli: Well I think parties fight blistering campaigns in elections, two weeks, maybe more than that. And they spend money, energy. But when you have, on a platter, sort of, through defection, I think this is also legitimate. Not the best way to form the government, but it is legitimate.

Kulasegaran: So you're saying even if you form the government by immoral means, as long as I come into power, the means doesn't matter? By defections, party-hopping, a culture abhorred in this country, just because I want to be in power?

Ramli: No, it is a legitimate means, though it’s not the best way. And I don't think it is immoral. For defections, we have experienced this before in 1994 in Sabah, and through the defection of the PBS assemblyman the BN was in power, and then from there they consolidated their power, nearly for nearly 14 years? Then after they consolidated their power, the BN government in Sabah, has never experienced stability as they have experienced now.

Kulasegaran: That means Tan Sri is saying basically that party-hopping is okay. That under a banner, standing under DAP or BN, and after getting elected under the DAP or BN banner, I am no longer responsible to my constituents and to the party, but to the party that can corrupt me or shower me with gifts and new unnatural love?

Ramli: Well I don't know about that but...
Kulasegaran: Well that's what people are writing online, on the Internet, I think it is vividly clear...

Ramli: Well I don't know about showering of gifts.
Kulasegaran: I mean where in this country do you have executive councillors leaving office to cross over to another party? Never, unless there is something magical. You see when people contest against Barisan it's because of certain principles and beliefs, Barisan is an arch enemy of these people. Suddenly the numbers game is so important where one, two can change the government, the principles are no longer that important. They can jump and say I can now sleep with my enemy? How?
Ramli: Well I don't see it as immoral as such, because Pakatan Rakyat also accepted somebody who jumped. (Datuk) Nasaruddin (Hashim) from Bota, he was accepted. If it had been a determining factor whether the Pakatan Rakyat formed a government or not, then they will have formed a government with a majority of one. So they have accepted this, so is this immoral as such?

Kulasegaran: But in the case of Nasaruddin it is a bit different. When he hopped to Pakatan Rakyat, he said ‘I have lost confidence, I don’t want to be in Umno’, that is one aspect of it. But he has been a different type of assemblyman, Tan Sri, he was able to go back, even before defecting, to the people in Bota and tell them “I'm going to defect”. And number two, after defecting there was a 10,000-people gathering in Bota, in the presence of (Datuk Seri) Anwar (Ibrahim) and other party leaders, explaining to his constituents. In the case of three people who jumped, they were nowhere to be seen, even their shadows. That means there is something different.

Ramli: Well there could have been people there who had not elected him, these could have been opposition members you know.

Kulasegaran: But in Bota itself.

Ramli: Well in Bota yes, but they may not have elected him.

Kulasegaran: And he is daring enough to go.

Ramli: In the sense when an assemblyman or an MP defects, in a sense, I agree, it is a betrayal of the trust of some of the voters that they have given to him. But when you pick a candidate, let's (say we) pick a very popular candidate.

People will support him, not the party. Probably 70 per cent of the support is because of his popularity, maybe 30 because of the party machinery. So in that sense, when he defects, not that many people will feel betrayed, people go with him wherever he goes, because he is popular. But in cases of say, very new candidates, where the party machinery is more important than the candidate then 70 per cent because of party machinery, of the manifesto and policies, then I agree that most of the people will feel betrayed if he crosses over.

So there are many reasons, not just one. He jumped, the two probably jumped, I heard reports that they were very disheartened by the leadership, so they had reasons for doing so.

Kulasegaran: Well I'm not surprised that this started with the leadership, if someone is charged for corruption and your case is hanging on your head and you're in court, and all kinds of promises have been made to you, and true enough the case has been postponed, wouldn't anybody think of doing that?This is another fact, like what Dr Mahathir himself said, “how can you take this kind of rotten eggs into your party?”

We just passed at the last sitting of Parliament, the Malaysian Anti-corruption Commission Bill, what are we trying to show to the country? Here I'm trying to say that we want to wipe out corruption or condemn these wrongdoings yet because I want to be in power, it doesn't matter if the man is dirty or has a lot of dirt on him, he is okay.

Tan Sri I just want to differ with you when you say 70 per cent support the person and only 30 per cent the party.

Ramli: I said sometimes. Sometimes.

Kulasegaran: Well I think in this country it is the reverse, in fact 70 per cent (support) the party or more, and very little on the person.

It's the party that people go for. Because many a time when people have left a party and contested as independents, they have not only lost, many times they have lost their deposit. It is not the individual.

I know of people who have gone for four, five elections, got 15-25,000 majority every time. But when they left and contested on their own, they cannot even garner 500 votes.

Ramli: Well what I said was specific, and what you are saying is general. There are candidates who are so popular, that his popularity accounts for nearly 70 per cent of the votes.

Kulasegaran: I take exception to the rule.

Ramli: ..there are also candidates..
Kulasegaran: You have stood for nearly six, seven elections, if you remember Tan Sri, that's why I keep on telling people, it's a bit different from other countries, you agree with me? When we go and contest elections we don't say “I am Kulasegaran and I want to contest', no, your party gives you a letter.One, you are so and so. Two, you can use your symbol. Three, you are from this party.

Ramli: Yes, that’s true ...

Kulasegaran: That letter is given to the returning officer, the RO at the place of nomination.

Ramli: Yes, I know, but that's the formality.
Kulasegaran: No no, that's not the formality, what happens without that letter?
Ramli: You become an independent.
Kulasegaran: Al right. So what's the difference? Because I cannot use the symbol, I cannot use the symbol of the rocket. So actually it is the party that you represent, therefore party-hopping cannot be accepted.
Ramli: Not in all cases. We have Sandakan from BN who was independent and he won, he was one of the ...
Kulasegaran: No, no, I think the letter speaks for itself, I think. There is a contract with the people, and I elect you because you represent the party. But in Perak what is weird is we have a situation where, we have one wife two husbands. One state with two menteris besar, how can this happen?
Ramli: Now, I want to remind you about something. Now in Malaysia as you know, we don't condemn people until they are found guilty.
Kulasegaran: True, true.
Ramli: So we still regard them as innocent, and they are true defectors. Not because of anything behind it.Now before that the Perak government, of course, supported them and said these two people were set up or something to that effect. So where do we go from there? If they are in, we accept, if they are out, they are rotten eggs, it's a contradiction.
Kulasegaran: Whatever it is, the bottom line is they are rotten eggs. So there were two rotten eggs in Pakatan Rakyat, so BN felt that they would take the rotten eggs because now they are golden eggs.
Ramli: Well to them it is not rotten eggs. They said they defected because of certain, valid reasons. And then the BN accepted them. Who doesn't want that? I mean, you know, you fight 20, 30, 40 years for power and when you are given power like that wouldn't you grab it?
Kulasegaran: Well power was seized undemocratically, and so wrongly.
Ramli: It is not wrong here, you know, it is just not a good way to form a government, but I don't think it is immoral.
Kulasegaran: Don't you agree with me that it is not too late to call now for elections, that (Datuk Dr) Zambry (Abd Kadir) and (Datuk Seri Mohammad) Nizar (Jamaluddin) would agree, let's go and let the people decide? It is not for anybody singularly to decide who should be in government. People believe there is a black hand behind all this, they say (Datuk Seri) Najib (Razak) is the one because he aspires to be prime minister very soon, and somehow by legal or illegal means I will have the state government, and Perak is very important in the whole jigsaw puzzle.
Ramli: Look when I came here, I just want to look at what are the responsibilities, the ethics of crossovers and so on. I'm not willing to go beyond, because then it would just all be speculative and there would be no bounds. That's all speculative.Now with the Sultan of Perak, having exercised this power, do you think that those who opposed him that day, during the swearing-in ceremony, and blocked the roads, were they doing the right thing? That was serious.
Kulasegaran: I think there are two things to look at. First of all the exercise of the power of the MB. I think I cannot go wrong if I were to quote what Sultan Azlan Shah himself has written, in his own book, it is very pertinent, this is what he said. (Reads) “Under normal circumstances, it is taken for granted that the Yang diPertuan Agong would not withold his consent to a request for a dissolution of parliament. His role under such a situation is pure formality.”In fact this was read by Nizar to him, because he told Nizar, these are the things where the Sultan himself has done. So I think there must be certain things, as a monarch, he himself has written (this), and I'm not putting words into it Tan Sri.
Ramli: Yes, correct ...
Kulasegaran: And I think he should have acted in a manner in the best interest for his subjects. We should not overlook that. Number two, his royal highness, having gone into the mechanics of ascertaining whether one has the majority or not, by conventional means, that’s not right. That is why we have elections.
We choose our own leaders. To be very frank, using your own words, this is now in court, let the courts decide whether they are guilty or otherwise. In fact in the first instance I represented six of them (protestors). And whatever it is we must pay respects to the royalty, there is no question about it. But there are people who are very aggrieved and upset with what's happening, it's never happened in this country. Against royalty, of this nature.
Ramli: No, and it shouldn't be.Kulasegaran: It shouldn't be.Ramli: And it's sad that it happened.
Kulasegaran: True, and it happened in our state. I think we should also understand that from the ground people are not very happy with Zambry being appointed MB. And I think all this can be settled. So in answering your question, I feel that at the end of the day they have been charged, let the courts decide whether they were involved.
If I were to tell you some of the facts of the matter, the six people I met, they told me this: “I went for Friday prayers, my motorbike was the first bike at the mosque. Behind me there were six other rows of motorbikes, what do I do? And the police are asking us to disperse, I have to wait for my motorbike and the police heret sama (dragged) dia.” And there was another chap who went to pray, it so happened that another friend of his came to help him, and both were caught.
We don't really know who caused it.But let's not forget, at the end of the day, (with) the protestors, was there too much excessive force?Were they very unhappy they did not have avenues or means to express their opinions, just because a decision had been made. It is not a God-made decision, and we respect everybody's decision.
Ramli: Yes okay, all right. Under the normal circumstances, yes. The Sultan should not withhold consent.But you have to remember, these are really not normal circumstances. The Sultan has a right to withold consent for the dissolution of the assembly.
Because in the assembly there is already a majority coming from Barisan. Barisan holds the majority therefore it is incumbent upon the Sultan to appoint one of them as MB., and to appoint the executives which command the majority of the assembly.So when you can already form a government, why do you have to go to people again for election when you can appoint the government?
Kulasegaran: Because three of them have voluntarily resigned. They have submitted letters to the Speaker. So three of them are out. Then we have a tie. 28-28. So what do we do? How can you run a government when there is a tie? And we have three who have resigned. Once they have tendered their resignation, the Speaker has the final say.
Ramli: But you know the situation is not like that. Because these three who resigned, had aligned themselves with the Barisan Nasional. And the Sultan was very detailed, he didn't just hear (it from) anybody.
That Barisan had acquired that majority. He took upon himself, it's not normally done.
Kulasegaran: And which a monarch should not be involved in because we should let the public decide.
Ramli: No I am saying he took it upon himself to ascertain whether these three had really gone to Barisan Nasional. Now only when he was satisfied, then the government was formed. It wasn't just on a whim, you know.
Kulasegaran: But they had already submitted their letter of resignation to the Speaker, the Speaker acknowledged, he informed the Election Commission.
It looks like a whole conspiracy. Somehow the Pakatan has been undermined to rule, like there are so many people against a legitimate government, one that is properly constituted within the law, one with the popular support.
Not withstanding all that, just because of the mechanics of one or two assemblymen, (they) can hold ransom the whole state to ransom and bring anarchy to Perak.
Ramli: The Sultan was very detailed. He satisfied himself fully, that there was a majority. Only then did he appoint the government. As to whether these three people resigned or not, their letters, I think that’s in the courts now.
That's up to the courts to decide. But as it is, the matter is not yet brought to the courts, and we should take it as that they have aligned themselves. They aligned themselves, then the Sultan was satisfied that Barisan had the majority and could form the government. Because of that, there is no point to have an election.
Secondly, I disagree on the demonstration. I think the demonstrators had a concerted effort Because I was there. They took advantage of the Friday prayers, they congregated, with their flags and their Israeli and Palestinian flags...
Kulasegaran: I didn't see an Israeli flag, I was there too Tan Sri.
Ramli: Well it was planted on one of the cars, to show to those who were going to the swearing-in ceremony that there was 'zalim' (cruelty), Well you could see how belligerent they were, I saw them.They showed their feet to us.
I think it was a concerted effort, an organised one, I believe. And they were totally misinformed as to the powers of the Sultan. The powers of the Sultan is simply to appoint where the current MB has lost his confidence of the assembly, then a new party, which has the confidence of the assembly, a new MB will appointed amongst them.This is what the Sultan did.
Kulasegaran: So tomorrow these three people switch to Pakatan so we switch? Then Nizar becomes MB again, and then two months later these three move to another side , then Zambry? Ding dong bell. (laughs)
Ramli: That would be a different situation, necessitating a different kind of decision. It depends on the situation.
Kulasegaran: I think these are political decisions best for the rakyat to make. But I think we have missed the opportunity. But it's not too late, the Perakians can still move on with what we have.
Ramli: It's true, I agree that we should move on from here. And I think probably some solution to stabilise the situation will come true. But I think the people who demonstrated and who vilified the matter in the blogs and so on, they are not informed, or refused to be informed of the situation.
The people must remember that the royal house has been there, for more than 500 years, since 1528, and before that they are the descendant of the Malaccan sultanate, and before that, the Srivijaya empire.It is a continuous monarchy that has ruled for 1,700 years, one of the longest surviving monarchs in the world.
Now you must remember, they ruled this area as their realm. But with the advance of democracy they gave up their power to the people, holding only residual power. The residual power is to appoint the MB and that's what he did. And the exercise of that small power that they have, had led to vilification and this is uncalled for.
Kulasegaran: I think they are held in very high esteem in Malaysian society, both of them (the Sultan and Raja Nazrin) , their speeches, their acts and the way they governed the state. But in this matter, somehow the Sultan could have done it in maybe some other manner, some way out. Let's not forget what happened in 1978, when Ghazali Jawi was asked to resign, he did not instantly. He did not. Back then it was Sultan Idris.
Many people have overlooked that to think Nizar was the first MB who refused to resign. So it is not really that case, there was a precedence prior to this where the former MB, from Umno, who refused to resign for some time. And finally there was some form of political arrangement, he resigned and a successor was chosen by the MB who was asked to resign.
I still remember the Sultan at the time, after having achieved his ability to persuade him to resign after some months, he went to Pangkor and shaved his beard and telling the public “I've finally got the MB of my choice”. So what it all shows ,Tan Sri, is that the Sultan just plays a very formal role. And although in this case Sultan Azlan and the Raja Muda are both very highly respected, but they also must look at the law.
And what Nizar did, there is no provision anywhere to say he must resign. So they are caught within that situation and as I said earlier, now we have one wives, twotwo wives one husbands. We are now caught. Nizar is not going to resign. And I think political leaders like you, maybe, should bring the parties together and talk to them. You were the menteri besar for many years.
Ramli: Well Yang Berhormat to reply to that, that situation was about when Tan Sri Ghazali Jawi was asked to resign. Here, the Sultan never asked Nizar to resign. Nizar has to resign, because he ceased to have command of the state assembly.
When he has ceased to have the command of the state assembly, then he must resign according to the constitution. When he ceases to have the command, then another party which has the command and the confidence of the assembly will have to be appointed.
Kulasegaran: But you must go to the floor of the assembly to decide the majority. When he went to see the Sultan, he had the majority. He went there on that basis: “I'm asking for dissolution on the grounds that I want to go back and get the mandate from the public.”
And that's where the thin line between the role of the monarch and the role of the MB comes, it's very near, yet very far. I think it would have been prudent...
Ramli: No, he didn't have the majority at that time. Because of the defections.
Kulasegaran: But even with the defection, we still have 28. See, as in other countries, we could have a minority government, what's wrong with that? You can allow that.
Ramli: Well yes, that's true.
Kulasegaran: I mean I can't ask you why the Sultan made the decision, but that's why I say there are some other forces, people say a “black” hand.
Ramli: But a minority government never survives. They never survive.
Kulasegaran: But did you test it, allow it to go? That is why the democratic process should have been allowed to flow. We may disagree. But these are things we allow the voters to decide.
Ramli: Well it's clear from the constitution. I believe the Sultan has acted within the constitution and he was correct. Because those who hold the confidence or the majority of the assembly should form the government, and that is exactly what they did. Because Nizar, or PR, had lost the confidence of the assembly, therefore he shall resign. He must resign.
Kulasegaran: I think a golden opportunity was lost when we failed to allow a minority government to survive. Canada now has a minority government? There are many parts of the world with a minority government,In fact in Canada the financial bills were just passed through parliament, a minority government. Maybe something new for this country.
Ramli: Yes, but well it was not question of letting a minority government, the Pakatan Rakyat government to continue. It was a question of whether to dissolve the assembly or not. See? The minority government asked for the assembly to be dissolved.
Kulasegaran: So when he refused ..

Ramli: It was refused because a government can be formed without elections.

Kulasegaran: Well yes, that is true. But that is not a proper manner of doing it. When the masses voted, they wanted a government of their choice. Now it is an illegitimate government. Illegitimate power grab, daylight robbery, goes by backdoor, a coup d’etat.

Ramli: I think we have been discussing this. It is not illegitimate. It is legitimate, just not the best way. Because of the defection. And given the circumstances I think any party would grab the opportunity.

Kulasegaran: Tan Sri I think that is where we sometimes differ. You see for the DAP, we don't believe in defections. And as you say, some people may be interested in grabbing power. But as you can see in the last 45 years, we have never really done this.

We have been consistent, as you have seen lately how Karpal has been very strong and vocal about these things. To the extent of him telling the leaders that they must comply. We believe very strongly in these principles.

Ramli: But then you are nowhere near the power threshold, that's a fact. You see when you are teetering between being a government, and not being a government, between having power or not, you would grab these defections, I am sure.

Kulasegaran: If that is the argument, then one can look at the way the opposition and in particular the DAP has been denied free and fair elections in this country, where for example, you contested in a parliamentary seat where the number of voters are not even half of was less than half of my constituency’s.

Ramli: You have said all this before in Parliament many times ...

Kulasegaran: Yes, gerrymandering.

Ramli: I want to put to you again — don't you think these demonstrators, who vilified the Sultan, and in the blogs? Is this fair, correct and proper?

Kulasegaran: They have been charged. I would be prejudging. It is not a political answer I can give.

In the case I have put to you, on people who jump from party to party, it's a political decision, it is not so much on court matters, it's the forming of government.

I think Tan Sri, to be very plain, we do not subscribe to demonstrations anywhere. But sometimes people must also be able to exercise their freedom to object.And just because demonstrations are held in certain places (that) doesn't make them bad people.And I think people should also have this space to disagree.

We can always agree to disagree, there's nothing wrong about it. The machinery and the system Umno has, where literally every aspect they control, makes it very easy for them to control. FRU stands for ...

Ramli: Federal Reserve Unit.

Kulasegaran: No no Tan Sri, “For Rough Use.” (Both laugh)

Ramli: Well do you think these people throwing stones are not rough?

Kulasegaran: To be very frank that is for the court to decide. But I think the important thing is we now have to go back and look at the actual reason, it’s very unusual for people to do this kind of thing.

The monarch has been in a place where everybody admires, everybody loves the monarch. But somehow there is a group of people, of younger people, who are not so happy about it, those are things to be looked into. I think one cannot run away from it. Youngsters are speaking up their mind, online, in blogs, expressive in their views.

Ramli: Well they can express their views, no doubt. But they must be well informed, and in this case, they are not informed at all or improperly informed.And most of the demonstrators were from one race, the Malays. Most of them, if not all.

There appears to be a concerted effort somewhere, doing this for certain reasons. They were really throwing stones at my car, and many cars. If that is not rough, I don't know what is rough.

Kulasegaran: Tan Sri I think, I admire you for having acknowledged that this is not the best way to form the government. But having said that, the bottom line is that we all are answerable to the voters. Don't you think any government, whether Nizar or Zambry, should now go back and get a fresh mandate. Why are they reluctant?

Ramli: Well again I agree this is not the best way, but in the circumstances this is the most legitimate way.

Kulasegaran: Even through illegitimate and immoral means?

Ramli: No, it's not immoral.

Kulasegaran: (Laughs) If that is not immoral, I don't understand what immorality is all about.
Ramli: You know, during the Wilson era. I still remember, nearly 50 members of Parliament in Westminister.

Kulasegaran: Defected?Ramli: They didn’t defect, but they voted against the government. Voted with the opposition. Even though there was no defection or crossover, not in the sense that we had.But ultimately, that kind of action by protest by the Members of Parliament brought down the government. So it's the same thing, there is no defection as such...
Kulasegaran: Not really, there is a difference.
Ramli: Yes I know there is a difference...

Kulasegaran: In Britain, the British party whip system is weak. In our country, the whip is really a whip.

You suka, you takda suka (whether you like it or not) you must vote according to how your party has tabled a bill. There are no two ways about it. In the US, we have legislators who are Republicans but vote for Democrats.

But in Malaysia we don't have this space, we are restricted and conform with party lines. I think that is where we have to open up.

Ramli: Yes I agree there is a difference. It's not exactly the same. But what they did, when they voted against the government, and for the opposition, ultimately they brought down the government. It's the same thing. Here, defection brought down the government, there, protest brought the government, The results is the same.

Kulasegaran: Brought down the government but there were ways to prop up the government.
Ramli: Yes, three plus one is four. Two plus two is four. (Both Laugh)
Ramli: Result is the same.

Kulasegaran: No the three (are) illegal, cannot even be considered as assemblymen. Yet it was counted, I don't know how mathematically some people cannot count properly, it doesn't matter. That's okay.

But my question, at the end of the day, don't you think it is pertinent for them to be gentlemen and go and get the masses' approval. Why are they reluctant?

Ramli: It's up to them. They are in power now, I cannot comment on why.

Kulasegaran: I tell you why, they dare not because they have no report card and we have one for the successes of the last 10 months. We have all these policies, and have been transparent and accountable. They found a way out.

Ramli: But other people have different ideas, that this was just merely populist policies, not really for the government, that was what other people say. But when they have this government already in hand, it is up to them whether they want to concede the power. They have to wait, probably one year, two years.

Kulasegaran: I must thank Tan Sri for coming today. I think this one of the healthy things we should advocate. Where we are in different spectrums, but we can agree to disagree. Tan Sri is a very senior lawyer in that respect.Even when you were a speaker, a lot of times I disagreed with you, and a lot of times I agreed with you.

This political space should grow. So that everybody, whether rich or poor, educated or otherwise, informed or not informed, all should be rbought together and be in the system to roll and model our democracy. If we just distance ourselves and have an artificial way of propping up, in my words, an immoral government, there is something wrong.

Ramli: I would also like to thank you, YB Kula. You've always been interactive in Parliament. I'd just like to express my deep concern and sadness of the actions taken by the demonstrators in protest over the Sultan's decision.

Which, if they had been properly informed, should not have happened.Now I know young people, their hunger for knowledge, and they want to express themselves. But before they do that, they must seek proper knowledge about the situation. If they had properly understood, from step to step, what are powers of the Sultan, and why he did so, then this would not have happened.

The Sultan being a very detailed person has done all that was necessary before he used his discretion to appoint the MB.

I think leaders, whoever they are, they should also explain this kind of things. Not to vilify institutions for carrying out their responsibilities. To vilify someone who is doing their duty under the Constitution is just wrong.

I hope whatever process taken now, can be taken in courts. Let's give our support to this because we cannot compel anybody. Let's see what the results of courts are, and we hope people will abide by it. Ultimately we would like to see stability in Perak.

1 comment:

James Lim said...

"Ramli: It is not wrong here, you know, it is just not a good way to form a government, but I don't think it is immoral."

It's shocking indeed that he did not know how to distinguished between what is moral and what is immoral.

Is bribing someone to cross-over immoral? Well, I think he would insist it is still moral.