Author: Hafiz Noor Shams

For more about me, please read this.

[1781] Of the battle of credibility

Post author By Hafiz Noor Shams
Post date Thursday, September 18 2008
1 Comment on [1781] Of the battle of credibility

With September 16 passed without a change of government despite the promise of Anwar Ibrahim, members of Barisan Nasional wasted no time to point out how the promise is merely hot air. The Barisan Nasional government still stands on the day after despite Pakatan Rakyat’s threat. In the media aligned to the ruling coalition, there is a clear hint of celebration and contempt against Pakatan Rakyat.

Anwar’s credibility is on the line at the moment and with the influence Barisan Nasional over the mainstream media, it is not hard to encourage the public to question Anwar’s credibility. Anwar has only himself to blame for allowing him to be openly attacked in such manner.

Even the Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi openly challenged Anwar’s reputation. I do not think I have seen the Prime Minister using so harsh a tone one national television. Given the grandfatherly nature of the Prime Minister, I found myself almost at a state of shock watching and listening how the Prime Minister was directly undermining Anwar’s credibility and the words which he used.

The Prime Minister was referring to a letter which Anwar sent to him early. Anwar stated that he mentioned about power transfer and request for refrain from declaring emergency rule but the Prime Minister revealed to the media that Anwar’s statement is untrue.^[1]

As the Prime Minister continued speaking, I began to feel how ironic the whole situation is. Here is the Prime Minister and the President of Barisan Nasional, who has repeatedly damaged his own reputation through inconsistent policies and flip-flopping, questioning another person’s credibility.

A colleague shared his opinion with me earlier in the morning at work on how Anwar has more credibility than the Prime Minister. I cannot help but nod in agreement with him. I have no doubt that Anwar’s credibility suffers from his failure to stick to the promise of September 16. Yet, for me personally, Anwar still have more credibility than Prime Minister Abdullah.

After the Prime Minister was no more on the television, I concluded that he should be the last person on television to talk about credibility.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

^[1] — PUTRAJAYA: PKR adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s letter to the Prime Minister only mentioned national security, the leadership and problems on morality and politics and had not touched on the transfer of power to the Opposition. [‘Anwar’s letter didn’t mention transfer of power’. V.P. Sujata. The Star. Accessed September 17 2008]

Tags credibility

Liberty Politics & government

[1780] Of is the defection by SAPP immoral?

Post author By Hafiz Noor Shams
Post date Wednesday, September 17 2008
10 Comments on [1780] Of is the defection by SAPP immoral?

Without doubt, there are individuals and groups which oppose Pakatan Rakyat’s idea of forming the federal government via defection. These groups rationalize their opposition by stating the voters elected the current government into power and not the current opposition. That rationale could be deconstructed further: voters’ main factor in voting a candidate into office is his political association and not the political belief or the characteristics of the candidate himself.

Given this, I wonder how the groups view SAPP’s defection from Barisan Nasional. Is it as immoral as Pakatan Rakyat’s idea?

I see no difference between SAPP’s action and Pakatan Rakyat’s proposal. Both violate the rationale of the individuals and groups which oppose formation of government via defection. I therefore expect the individuals and groups to oppose SAPP’s decision to quit Barisan Nasional and still retain the seats which SAPP won on March 8.

I personally do not buy the idea because the fact remains that in the system we live in, we vote individuals into office, not political parties. As a result, there is nothing undemocratic about forming a government via defection. Besides, willing defection is about freedom of association.

Tags political defection

History & heritage

[1779] Of the myths surrounding the formation of Malaysia

Post author By Hafiz Noor Shams
Post date Tuesday, September 16 2008
No Comments on [1779] Of the myths surrounding the formation of Malaysia

Several myths about the formation of Malaysia require addressing.

First revolves around the notion that Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore joined Malaya in 1963 to form Malaysia. This is simply untrue because all member states of Malaysia federated to form a new federation called Malaysia. Nobody joined Malaya in 1963.

The second myth concerns how Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore joined Malaysia. This is at best inaccurate and at worst downright false. The rationale against this myth is the absence of Malaysia as a state in prior to 1963. Instead Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore helped establish Malaysia.

Those who believed in either the first or the second myth tend to cite the United States of America as an example of how changes in the number of membership do not affect a state as an entity. The comparison however is flawed because the history of the US does not run parallel to that of Malaysia.

It differs in a way that 37 states other than the original 13 states of the United States joined a pre-existing union. The United States was formed as an entity in 1776 and 37 other states joined that union after 1776.

In the case of Malaysia, nobody joined any pre-existing entity simply because there is no pre-existing entity to join into. There was no Malaysia as a state to join into prior to September 16 1963. What existed were the Federation of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore.

The example of the US is only applicable for Malaysia if there are changes in membership after 1963. Just how addition of new member states into the union does not affect the United States’ status as a state after the formation of the state, any change of membership of the federation — save total dissolution of Malaysia — after 1963 will not affect the status of Malaysia as a state. It is for this very reason that Malaysia still exists after Singapore was expelled in 1965. If Brunei is to join Malaysia in 2009, Malaysia will still be the state it was in 1963.

Third myth is about Sabah, Sarawak, Singapore and Malaya coming together to form Malaysia. This too is false though compared to the other three myths, this does come closer to the truth since the contrary is certainly arguable given how the Malaysia Agreement was signed and executed. Nevertheless, all 14 member states of 1963 Malaysia, each as a separate entity, federated to form a 14-state federation and this is made clear in the Malaysia Act 1963.^[1] It was not a 4-state federation. The member states of Malaya did not participate in Malaysia as a unitary Malaya but rather, they joined the new federation on individual basis. In forming Malaysia, the Federation of Malaya was immediately dissolved to allow the 11 states of Malaya along with three other states to federate; the Federation of Malaya ceased to exist upon the establishment of Malaysia.

The final myth confuses Malaya with Malaysia. The difference between Malaya and Malaysia goes beyond superficial change in name. The 20-point agreement between signed at the time between Sabah and the would-be federal government of Malaysia specifically mentioned that the Constitution of Malaysia is not the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya.^[2] Therefore, the two Constitutions are two different documents and each document governs different state.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

^[1] — (1) For the purpose of enabling North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore (in this Act referred to as “the new States”) to federate with the existing States of the Federation of Malaya (in this Act referred to as ”the Federation”), the Federation thereafter being called Malaysia, on the day on which the new States are federated as aforesaid (in this Act referred to as ”the appointed day”) Her Majesty’s sovereignty and jurisdiction in respect of the new States shall be relinquished so as to vest in the manner agreed between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Federation and the new States. [Malaysia Act 1963. Office of Public Sector Information. Accessed September 16 2008]

^[2] — Whilst accepting that the present Constitution of the Federation of Malaya should form the basis of the Constitution of Malaysia, the Constitution of Malaysia should be a completely new document drafted and agreed in the light of a free association of states and should not be a series of amendments to a Constitution drafted and agreed by different states in totally different circumstances. A new Constitution for North Borneo (Sabah) was of course essential. [20-point agreement. Wikipedia. Accessed September 16 2008]