Malaysia-Today.net: - Comparing apples with oranges
V. Ching, The Malaysian Insider (excerpts):
I find your analysis highly faulty and disturbing, both in terms of the factual assumptions that you have used, and the conclusions you draw from that.
In terms of the factual assumptions, you stated that Arlen's switch has resulted in a Democratic supermajority in the chamber.
This is absolutely untrue. Senator Specter's switch resulted in an increment of the Democratic majority from 58-41 to 59-40, which does not constitute a supermajority.
A supermajority is only achieved when a party has 60 per cent of the votes.
It also seems to me that you misunderstand the workings of the US Senate.
Supermajorities are not required to pass legislation.
Legislation usually only needs a simple majority to pass. The reason a supermajority is desired is because a supermajority is required to invoke cloture, which is to stop all debate and bring the subject to a vote.
It must be noted that American politics does not equal Malaysian politics. In America, party affiliation means nothing.
Senators or Congresspersons have little obligation to vote with the party line, unlike Malaysia, where not toeing the party line could results in drastic consequences such as suspensions.
They are known as RINOs, short for Republican in Name Only. Similarly, Senator Specter was known as a RINO, and this switch changes nothing - his party affiliation will not affect how he votes on issues, as he has already repeatedly stated. In essence, nothing changes except for the word next to his name.
Can you honestly tell me that the defections of the 3 assemblypersons are done in accordance of the wishes of their constituency?
They mostly vote according to personal opinion where party lines mean little. So to compare the Perak situation with them would be akin to comparing apples and oranges.
Another issue I have issues with is your insistence against the dissolution of the state assembly, and I would like to raise a few scenarios, like you have.
When speaking about the Perak constitutional crisis, one should always examine the Australian Constitutional Crisis, the only comparable crisis to the occurrences in Perak.
The reason I say that this is one of the only comparable situation is because this is one of the only modern precedent where the entire executive branch got toppled not because of a major event that sparked a nationwide public outcry that subsequently caused a crisis of confidence, but because of the individual crisis of confidence from the members of the legislative branch.
The Australian Constitutional Crisis occurred in 1975 when the Labour government in Australia lost power in the upper chamber through a series of coincidental events.
The resemblances to the Perak constitutional crisis are almost uncanny; the Governor (representative of the Queen) of Australia sacked Labour PM Whitlam, and the lower house passed a motion of no confidence against the incoming Liberal government in which the incoming Liberal PM Fraser was absent (Under the Tree Assembly anyone?).
To break the deadlock, guess what happened? A double dissolution.
The decision was given back to the people. You can find that elections have always been the 'safety net' when dealing with treacherous crisis, whether it be the King-Byng affairs in Canada where the Governor initially refused a request for the dissolution of the Parliament, or a close New Hampshire Senate race where Democrat John Durkin beat Republican Louis Wyman by 2 votes out of millions.
The end result to solve the conflict was always the same: to go back to the people.
However, before I sign off, I would like to appeal to your common sense.
Though I have major disagreements with you, I still have a great respect for you.
Malaysia is a representative democracy, where elected representatives represent the people. If the elected representatives have lost the confidence of the people, then how can they profess to represent them?
Yes, you may have the majority in the legislative assembly, but does the legislative assembly truly represent the voice of the people?
Aren't state-wide polls the best way to find this out?
I can only deduce that Khairy should not be so presumptious and condescending with his views. He is not the only Oxford graduate in town. There are also many other graduates not from Oxford who are better than him. Additionally there are people who are more familiar with the American political system than him The list goes on.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. The main problem seems to be what is expected of a leader in a race-based party and the result is always to show that you can fight for the race. But as most of us know by now, it seems so unnecessary with most institutions under control. So what we have are well qualified and intelligent people behaving like they have no substance of their own, having to toe party line as in 'blind loyalty'.
ReplyDelete