OnePlusYou Quizzes and Widgets

An Open Letter

Mr Badawi,

The word 'transparency' has been at the core of your manifesto when you entered office in late 2003. I don't see that now when your minister tabled for first reading the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2007 that seeks to extend the, well you know, on November the 20th in Parliament. The motive and the timing of the proposal is questionable. Not only did you not consult the rakyat, (through publishing it in the press?) I don't even know whether you have consulted The Yang-diPertuan Agong and the Conference of Rulers on this or not.

I'm merely suggesting this, but could it be that you need him for next year's GE? Similarly the IGP's and the ACA-DG's tenureship have all been extended. You even tried to extend the tenureship of one of the key figures in the 'Lingamgate' episode, Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz. Or did you already? I apologise but my memory fails me. But anyway he's not in office so it doesn't matter now.

One explanation has popped up so far, and I believe it's the answer you'd prefer. These men have served their posts well and you'd like them to do it for another few months/a year right? Very well, but there's another explanation that I've thought of, that you'd like for them to 'help' you out through the most crucial stages of your stewardship as PM due to the strategic positions they each hold. You mean to say that the ACA Director-General, Inspector General of Police, Chief Justice and Election Commission Chairman aren't key posts to you?

I have my right and reasons to suspect and question your fuzzy motives, and so do the people.

Perhaps you'd show some accountability to the people, and at the very least, give a soundful explanation on why The Constitution has to be amended for the sake of one civil servant, at this very time on the eve of the General Election. Please, do not give some layman arrogant excuse like your subordinate in the Prime Minister's Department of having the backing of the majority to do so, because you don't have the proof, like what all you and your subordinates have demanded when grouses are filed against yourselves.

Does your subordinate in the PM's department have proof of 2 million Indians backing him in his press statement recently? No. Do we have proof of the EC's shortcomings? Not substantial, but there is some (note: some) clear evidence of the lack of accountable governance on the EC's part (See: Ipoh Barat and Ipoh Timor constituencies). Various ministers have demanded that opposition voices show clear proof of wrongdoing or shut-up-sit-down-and-don't-stir-up-trouble.

So, will you also do your part, and show us, the people, that your actions are justified, in other words, proof? Or else, please do your people and nation a favour, and leave The Constitution alone, or so to rephrase the general notion that's being brought up from time to time.

Thank you for your time. Oh and by the way, I'm assuming you, because you're the head of government.. right?

Tee Haow Kang
Someone who's been reading the news would know that a further 3 rallies are planned for December. One by the Bar Council to celebrate Human Rights Day and another by BERSIH.

BERSIH's question this time around is simple. Why change the constitution for one civil servant? EC Chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman turns 66 at the end of this year, and Minister in the PM's Department Nazri Aziz is spearheading the proposal to amend the constitution to allow the EC Chairman to retire at 66 instead of 65.

So the gazillion-dollar question lies here. Is it justifiable that The Constitution (note, The Constitution) be amended just because of one man? Surely the underlying reason isn't very clear.

Additional informative reads here, here, here and here. That's if you'd spare some time and think for the sake of the country =). Call me a pessimist if you will, but I'm worrying for this country's constitution at this current rate. I also personally think that royal intervention is needed for this, to put this on record.

(Witness the power of >66% majority, 377 specific amendments to 183 articles in the Federal Constitution thus far. zomg!!)

0 people said this sucked: