SAM

SAM

Followers

Dengarkan Utara.FM - Macam Biasa Juga Bah

Sunday, February 1, 2009

As I See It...

I went down to Tambunan town this morning for a cup of hot coffee when I had a glimpse on a newspaper headline stating the proposal of constitutional amendment for the passing of the Anti-Hopping Law – The idea seemed to be favoured by many particularly by the leaders within the UMNO itself (apparently after being evoked by the defection of Bota assemblyman recently), and by other Barisan Nasional (BN) components (Parti Bersatu Sabah especially, who has had an experience of being denied its power to form state government during the 1994 mass defection) – and as predicted the supportive statement has also been read out by Lim Guan Eng (DAP) as well (maybe the fear of facing the same fate), and ironically, by Sabah Progressive Party’s president, Yong Teck Lee, whom has said that he would support the enacting of the proposed Anti-Hop Law if the principles are genuine and are being done in the interests of the people and the nation (Did he genuinely talk about principle?).
Nevertheless, on the other extreme, some parties are still sceptical of the enactment of such law – as any amendment upon the Federal Constitution should be unanimously being implemented by the support of two third of the Dewan Rakyat’s members / the parliament.
This according to the facts (Federal Constitution in particular) is not an easy move to be taken by the Barisan Nasional (BN) as its strength is not ample to realize such move as BN does not own the mentioned two third majority in the Dewan Rakyat to initiate the law – even if the amendment is being made by the party – it would surely be declared Ultra Vires to the Federal Constitution - as it is denying one’s freedom of association (this obviously has long been manipulated by the cunning hopers).
I personally feel that this sort of law should have been enacted long time ago considering our own political experience in the past – any representative who has the intention to defect his/her party should professionally make vacant the seat to give way for the by-election.
No more hypocrisy and rhetoric; give way, or just quit – and no more trivial excuses stating that the government is not capable of realizing the “rakyat” aspiration anymore, the “rakyat” have lost confidence and faith, the delegates have unanimously voted and support the motion to hop (either tangibly or otherwise), or whatsoever. To be a leader must be a professional gentleman – and let the “rakyat “again decide via the ballots.
This is quite justifiable of seeing the current political landscape and political beliefs – the new generation of electorates are seemed to be more empiric and analytical in nature – the values that are being upheld are seen to be much of demanding the representatives who are not only having the qualities of leadership, but to certain extent, should be accountable and performing their duty with integrity – not to be a hopper afterwards.
Many issues are being talked lately – even towards now about how vital it is to work hard in improving the “rakyat” wellbeing and to draw their confidence back to the government of the day, and to not being so complacent.
Why it is now then such agenda is given a hastily central attention? The phrases like “cronyism”, “nepotism”, “corruption” and many more are now being much uttered - after the dismay defeat? And, the “transformation” instead of “restoration”.
Anyway, this is just my personal view and it should not be taken as a view of condemning any individuals or establishments. As for me, up to now, I still feel comfortable with what is being given by the government of the day.

8 comments:

SANGURU said...

cARL, GOOD ENTRY.

Kadang-kadang saya seperti lawan kerajaan, sebenarnya saya ingin menguatkan kerajaan. Siapa kata saya lawan kerajaan, dia tidak baca dari A-Z. Kadang-kadang saya seperti pro-pembangkang, bukan bermakna saya pembangkang, hanya kebetulan suara itu seirama tapi berlainan nada dan berbeza lirik.Siapa kata saya pembangkang, dia juga tidak baca dari A-Z. Bukan juga atas pagar, kerana bagi saya, tidak ada istilah atas pagar. Yang ada ialah: pengecut, pengampu, pok untung, munafik. SEMOGA AKU DIHINDARI DARI SIFAT BURUK INI.

Carl S. Adun said...

Betul tu Sanguru.We are neutral in nature - checking and balancing...Siapa lagi kalau bukan Sanguru & kita semua di SAM untuk initiate langkah...

Umar al-Longobi said...

personally, sy tidak bersetuju dengan penggubalan Anti-Hopping Law. bagi sy, hak melompat perlu diberikan kpd mereka. kalau sesebuah parti itu sudah menjadi umpama kandang lembu yg najisnya berhamburan di sana-sini, apa gunanya dia terus terperap dalam kandang itu. sbg pemimpin berwibawa, dia mesti keluar mencari tempat yg lebih bersih. itupun jika kandang itu sudah sampai ke tahap tidak mampu dibersihkannya.

undang2 yg perlu digubal adalah, undang2 yg menyatakan bhw mana2 wakil rakyat yg lompat parti maka terlucutlah semua jawatannya termasuk keistimewaannya sbg wakil rakyat. kerusi yg disandangnya kosong dgn sendirinya dan PRK perlu dijalankan utk memilih wakil rakyat yg baru. lompat... boleh lompat, tapi lepaskan semua jawatan dulu. kalau mahu jawatan YB itu balik, bertandinglah dlm PRK. sekadar pandangan, tq.

Carl S. Adun said...

Giving way for by-election means the candidate (if the incumbent still would like to contest) he/ she has to relinquish any positions held (which is compulsory)- whatever it is the mass / "rakyat" have the absolute right & decisive decision via the ballots; which should be given due respect -my view is that, it is the ripe time to create such a law as our past experience has proven how the culture of hopping has created the instability & it's the dawn of the existence of the hypocrites politicians (in the case of Sabah e.g. 1994 mass defection which ruining the PBS)- by right, the person/repsentative should get a fresh mandate again through the by-election - this is because not only of morality issue but the manisfestation of his/ her struggle would be definitely differ somehow - which should be assess again by the "rakyat" via by-election. It is as if you were simply switching position & agenda at anytime & anywhere - like a self-appointed leader...just my views

Little Mike said...

ada dua perkara yang saya fikir tentang 'lompat melompat' iaitu;

1. adakah keputusan hendak melompat itu mendapat restu kawasan pilihanrayanya? . Kalau mendapat restu, adakah keputusan 'lompat' satu moral yang tidak menyimpangi etika demokrasi?

2. jika tidak mendapat restu, dan mengambil keputusan 'melompat' atas inisiatif sendiri, seharusnya kawasan tersebut di'kosong'kan. jika ats restu pun perlu dikosongkan dan adakan PRK.. masalahnya ini melibatkan kos dan wang rakyat...

walau bagaimanapun, saya agak kritikal dengan isu lompat parti. Anti Hopping Law boleh menyekat 'kerakusan' individu yang lebih mengutamakan 'tawaran lumayan' daripada memperjuangkan nasib rakyat.

pendapat saya, jika pemimpin dalam parti sudah kehilangan kredibilitinya, singkir dengan kertas undi. tidak susah menilai dalam 5 tahun pertama perkhidmatannya sebagai YB. Tapi kalau sudah berpenggal2 masih gagal dalam fungsi tugasknya, mengapa masih memberikan undi?

SANGURU said...

saya sependpat dengan sdr. siapa sdr tu? cuba teka konon...

Carl S. Adun said...

You're absolutely correct Mike. Thanks or the much more clearer additional views/ points -you've such a good & analytical observation.

Umar al-Longobi said...

tahniah sdr. carl atas entri yg membuka ruang bahas dan bincang. sy sengaja mberikan pdgn yg sdikit berbeza agar kita boleh melihat dlm pelbagai sudut. pd masa yg sama, sy x menafikan pdgn sdr carl, sanguru & LM. biasalah, setiap pkara ada pro & kontranya.

sy juga terfikir soal moral, pembaziran wang rakyat, sedikit ketidakstabilan dll. tapi, bagi sy semua itu berlaku sbb mereka melompat dgn membawa jawatan YB mereka sekali dan mengikut undang-undang sedia ada, wakil rakyat yang melompat parti secara automatik hilang kelayakan bertanding semula pada pilihan raya bagi tempoh lima tahun.

cuba gubal law yg sy jelaskan sebelum ini, sy fikir YB2 ini akan fikir 100x sebelum melompat dan perkara 10(1)(c) Perlembagaan Persekutuan (kebebasan berpersatuan) pun terjamin. lagi, rakyat di kwsnya pasti akan dapat menilai kenapa YB mereka melompat. tanpa ada penjelasan yg kuat, YB itu akan tumbang kalau btanding balik dlm PRK. ya, mungkin ini bukan solusi yg terbaik tapi sy kira praktikal utk senario politik m`sia kini. namanya pun pulitik, hehehe.. apa pandangan sdr?

Nota: antara intipati utama dlm cadangan AHL adl, bagi menyekat wakil rakyat daripada melompat parti.