Just so you know, it's mostly Dr Mahathir's fault that Malaysia's constitutional system of checks and balances has gone askew. I'm being bland and circumspect. This civility is not in deference to Dr M. It is out of respect of the subject matter of discussion here.
The Federal Constitution of Malaysia must be respected by everyone. It is the supreme law of Malaysia. It has a higher place even than DYMM Yang Di Pertuan Agong. In fact, the Federal Constitution begat the position of the Agong.
The Federal Constitution created the legislative branch of the Dewan Rakyat and the Dewan Negara and the paraphernalia of membership in those august chambers.
It also created the Judiciary which is intended to be the fount from which springs justice and fairness to all; Malaysian and non-Malaysian for so long as you are stepping on Malaysian soil.
And, unfortunately, it also created the Executive branch of government.
In a corporate context, the legislature is like the meeting place for shareholders representatives; all citizens being the shareholders.
The judiciary is like the statutory auditors that all corporate entities are required to engage.
The executive branch is the management.
This triangulation is the modern idea that carries the presumption so famously summed up by Lord Acton, that power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
By a miracle, one might say, Malaysia managed to maintain the tension of constitutional audit during its many years of nationhood and, thus avoided Lord Acton's axiom.
Once, in Tun Razak's era, the precipice of tyranny was avoided when Emergency Rule of 1969 was retired and the constitutional triumvirate restored in 1971.
Then, after Tun Hussein Onn's era, came Dr M.
This fella pretty much screwed the Federal Constitution and all its institutions.
He took down the monarchy's constitutional position in the legislative process in 1983.
He screwed the Judiciary in 1987.
Throughout his interregnum, 1981 to 2003, he emasculated the Legislature by disrespecting the importance of Parliamentary Debates and Question Time.
He enlarged the the writ and power of the Executive by stacking the Judiciary, appointing sycophantic personalities in all key positions; be it the monetary authority, the attorney-general's post and the law enforcement agencies.
From the point of view of economic development and national pride, he did reasonably well and presided over two decades of reasonable significance. I am glossing over a helluva lot of flotsam and jetsam, I know, but, let's stick to the agenda, shall we?
It is generally accepted that when one refers to a generation, it means a period of anywhere between 20 to 25 years.
So, going by that wisdom, Dr M's interregnum spanned a whole generation.
Think about it.
An entire generation of Malaysians grew up and grew old under a regime and regimen where everything is fair game ... for the greater good ... which "greater good" is seen from the perspective of Dr M.
This generation grew up accepting that if someone stands in your way, and if you are the Prime Minister, you just neutralise and neuter that person and his personage.
And, so, a potentially difficult monarch is in process of being elevated in 1983. Poof! Emasculate the legislative procedure.
And, so, a Lord President seemed to be getting in the way in 1987. Poof! Remove him. He's gone.
And, so, a restive Legislature and Opposition is coalescing in 1987. Poof! Preventively detain them.
And, so, a conscientious Fourth Estate of print media provides firmer reportage than before in 1987. Poof! Suspend their printing privileges.
This is what a whole generation of Malaysians were entreated to.
This form of constitutional iconoclasm has now embedded itself into the value system of Dr M's successors in title.
What we witness today is the embodiment and practises that Lord Acton's axiom warned against when people in power has the ability to amass and concentrate power.
When Arthur Schlesinger wrote The Imperial Presidency he fretted over the U.S. President's self-aggrandising process of giving the office of the U.S. President increasing power to authorise military action in Vietnam and Laos in the 1970s.
In Malaysia, we have been witnessing the growth of the Imperial Prime Minister's position since 1981.
This constitutional iconoclasm will be Dr M's greatest legacy.
When Dr M's hands were at the wheel, he was an able Nakhoda. Within his own psyche he bore his own peculiar set of values which in its own peculiar way held him back from doing certain things that he had the power to do but resisted doing.
He had a set of values. It could be upbringing. It could be education. It could be the fear of the audit in his Afterlife. Whether it was Nurture or Nature, Dr M had his own internal system of checks and balances.
The same can be said with much greater strength for Pak Lah. History will look kindly on Pak Lah. I look very kindly on Pak Lah's time at the helm of Malaysia.
The question that Tun Razak failed to ask and, the same question that Dr M failed to ask was, "What if this power that I have amassed in the Office of the Prime Minister is embodied in someone with less values and scruples than I?"
The question that Tun Razak failed to ask and, the same question that Dr M failed to ask was, "What if this power that I have amassed in the Office of the Prime Minister is embodied in someone with less values and scruples than I?"
But, in the absence of any constitutional checks and balances, the Ship of State that is the current constitutional ethos is moving in any which way without any restraint. There are no longer any checks and balances.
Mind you, to an untrained eye and mind, the Federal Constitution is still here. The constitutional institutions are still here. Even the constitutional procedures are still writ.
But, with persons who grew up and were fed with Mahathirist authoritarianism and his constitutional iconoclasm, can Malaysia depend on an individual leaders sense of personal values, upbringing and innate fear of the Afterlife? What if a leader has no such values or filter?
But, with persons who grew up and were fed with Mahathirist authoritarianism and his constitutional iconoclasm, can Malaysia depend on an individual leaders sense of personal values, upbringing and innate fear of the Afterlife? What if a leader has no such values or filter?
"So", asks the Minister in Malaysia's 2016 Federal Cabinet who grew up and was fed on Mahathirism, "what's the problem?"
This is why some of us are crying out for the restoration of the spirit and soul of the Federal Constitution, constitutional institutions and constitutional processes.
And, what is Dr M doing now?
Well, I can tell you that whatever it is that he is doing, he ain't hectoring for the restoration of the spirit and soul of the Federal Constitution, constitutional institutions and constitutional processes.
He's just asking for a change of personnel.
Go figure......
This is why some of us are crying out for the restoration of the spirit and soul of the Federal Constitution, constitutional institutions and constitutional processes.
And, what is Dr M doing now?
Well, I can tell you that whatever it is that he is doing, he ain't hectoring for the restoration of the spirit and soul of the Federal Constitution, constitutional institutions and constitutional processes.
He's just asking for a change of personnel.
Go figure......
