By TK Chua
I wish to remind Minister Salleh Said Keruak that the devil is in the details.
What precisely did he have in mind when he talked about “the spirit and the foundation of our constitution”? What exactly does he understand by globalisation, new politics and the spirit of statehood in new politics?
For all we know, what he perceives may be in total dissonance with what others have in mind.
Would he agree if I said the spirit and foundation of our constitution is based on the Westminster model of government where the Prime Minister is only the first among equals?
Yes, if we read the Malaysian constitution in totality, not selectively as we so often do nowadays, our system of government is meant to be a secular parliamentary democracy based on the constitutional monarchy, separation of power, rule of law, freedom of religion and information, common citizenship, and personal liberty.
May I ask Salleh Said Keruak which one of these he has problems agreeing with?
If the Prime Minister is only the first among equals, why are we arguing endlessly about the unfettered power of the PM? Where and how did it come about? Which part of the constitution has allowed that to happen?
If we have the federal court as the apex court of the land as provided for in the constitution, why are we arguing that the constitution intended to provide dual judicial systems such as we have today?
If we have only one class of citizenship, why are we arguing endlessly about who is more entitled than others? We ought to understand affirmative action programmes meant for the poor and underprivileged are not meant to irreparably dissect the country into different “classes” of people.
Seriously, are we really trying to help those who are in need or are we just trying to create disunity among the people?
Does Salleh Said Keruak agree that the foundation of our constitution is based on institutions, not personalities or individuals?
That is why we have different institutions like the Royalty, the Judiciary, the Parliament, the Cabinet, the Attorney-General’s Chambers, the Election Commission, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, the Public Service Commission, the national police force, the Human Rights Commission, the Audit Department, the Central Bank, the Public Accounts Committee and other select committees.
Surely these institutions are not wallflowers. Surely they must be allowed to play their roles to the full extent as provided for in the constitution. So where did their power and jurisdiction vanish to?
Minister Salleh Said Keruak also talked about globalisation and its implications on nationhood. I think it is dangerous to be ambiguous because it could mean different things to different people.
To me globalisation of ideas, values, business and “new politics” is inevitable. The best way to engage with it is not to build walls and exclusiveness, but to be relevant and liberal in our approach.
Why talk about lofty values and haughty ideas when they have become irrelevant and useless to our life?
The best assurance of nationhood is by being strong, independent and competent.
But how strong can we be when our national resources are being squandered?
How much independence can we assert when we are dependent on certain countries for help?
How much competency and ability can we instil in our children when our education has been in limbo for years?
Sometimes it is precarious to talk about lofty ideals. It only tends to boomerang right back into our face.
TK Chua is an FMT reader.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.