Have you ever listened to Malaysia’s first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman’s speech when he declared the independence of Malaya in 1957? At the end of his inspiring and rousing declaration, he says something interesting.
“Now in the name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful, I, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Ibni Al-Marhum Sultan Abdul Hamid Halimshah, Prime Minister of the Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, with the concurrence and approval of Their Highnesses the Rulers of the Malay States do hereby proclaim and declare on behalf of the people of the Persekutuan Tanah Melayu that as from the 31st day of August, 1957, the Persekutuan Tanah Melayu comprising the states of Johor, Pahang, Negri Sembilan, Selangor, Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan, Terengganu, Perak, Malacca and Penang is and with God’s blessing shall be forever a sovereign democratic and independent state founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of its people and the maintenance of a just peace among all nations.”
When it comes to democracy, people like to compare the system we have in Malaysia with other countries. Imagine comparing Tunku’s speech with the US’ Declaration of Independence. It would seem similar seeing that both countries were founded on the belief that there should be liberty and justice for all in a democratic environment where the people are the beholders of their own fate. Seems fair.
Sure, Malaysia has a Westminster parliamentary system while the US is a federal republic. We elect parties and party members choose the prime minister. Americans elect congressmen, senators and the president directly.
There are slight differences here and there, but the basis of the democratic system should be similar. There should always be a platform for the people, which is essentially their right to vote in elections, and a check and balance for the authority.
Currently, there is a lot of attention being given to the US because their presidential election is coming up soon and they have two of the most popular (but probably not favourable by the voters) candidates - Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
I recently had the opportunity to have a one-to-one interview with political scientist Kyle Kondik from the University of Virginia Center for Politics. We talked extensively about US politics and the coming election.
But one main topic that interested me was regarding the power and authority of the man or woman in the spotlight - the president.
With both candidates, Trump especially, making outlandish and ridiculous campaign promises, how worried the Americans are that these just might become reality. For example, building walls along the US borders and barring Muslims from entering the country.
But Kondik wasn’t too worried about the next president brandishing absolute power because it is just impossible with the existence of two other independent branches of government - the legislative and the judiciary.
Any major decision that the executive (president) wants to take will always need approval from the Congress. And there never is a guarantee that there will be a supporting Congress, not even if both houses are held by the president’s party.
As Kondik explains, the president really can’t act as he or she pleases because the system ensures that everything will be protected from absolute power. It would be dangerous if that is the case. So basically, the president is really there to be a leader and not authoritarian dictator.
Now back to Malaysia.
The democratic system in Malaysia also provides the people the right to vote in an election. However, with gerrymandering and manipulation, the value of the individual votes will vary from constituency to constituency.
Also, although there is supposed to be a separation of the executive, legislative and judiciary, the amendment of laws throughout the decades since independence has ensured that a lot of power falls solely in the laps of the executive.
In the very recent past itself we have seen new acts being put in place that will allow the executive to instantly wrangle absolute power without the need to of real and valid justification. The National Security Council (NSC) Act is one such example.
Any vague reason can be given to declare a state of emergency that would in turn put all power and authority into the hands of a ‘security council’ which would be led by, guess who, the prime minister himself.
The system has been slowly moulded and designed so that whoever succeeds in obtaining the coveted position of prime minister will almost be guaranteed the post for as long as he wishes due to the almost absolute power he has (whether officially or not).
Yes, in essence the legislative needs to be consulted when acts and laws like these are tabled, debated and passed. But the way the system is set up allows things to just be bulldozed through as we have seen happening time and again.
So when the many Malaysians out there demand for a proper democratic system to be implemented in the country, it seems illogical to have the elected leaders respond by saying that we need a different kind of democracy here due to the difference in culture. That’s bulls**t.
Malaysia is in dire need of a revamp of the political system. Enough is enough and we have to do something so that a proper democratic system with checks and balances can ensure that no one man is greater than any of our institutions.
ZAN AZLEE is a writer, documentary filmmaker, journalist and academic. He likes the idea of democracy. Visit FATBIDIN.COM to view his work. - Mkini
Did you know that you can shorten your long urls with Shortest and make money from every visit to your shortened links.
ReplyDelete