Sunday, September 25, 2016

Son wants Constitution amendment?

Do you remember Nathaniel Tan (Nat), once a personal aide to Anwar Ibrahim and then deemed a naive but staunch anwarista, wakakaka, but he like many eventually fell out of love with the Great Reformer.

But Nat, naive as he had been under Anwar, has a sneaky side to his character.

Like most PKR people he holds an invincible prejudice against the DAP. Could it be due to PKR's jealousy of DAP, or that the rakyat favours DAP more than PKR?

In early April this year he penned a letter to Malaysiakini titled Will Guan Eng be Dear Leader for life? which in my pro-DAP assessment (wakakaka) I considered as extremely biased, but a bias to be expected of a PKR-ista (or whatever party he has aligned himself to, though definitely not the DAP, wakakaka).

In that letter he questioned Lim Guan Eng’s tenure as chief minister (CM) of Penang and the issue of setting a term (not time) limit for a CM. Would that term-limit be constitutional and has it been done before in a Westminster parliamentary system?

Nat’s argument was that long tenure in high office lends substance to the old political adage that power corrupts, especially long term power.

In his letter to MKINI, he cherry-picked dictators to support his silly arguments, examples of long serving world leaders but who were (very naughty of his very shameful crafty cunning biased selection) only those from draconian dictatorships and fascist states, people like Kim Il-sung (N. Korea), Muammar Gaddafi (Libya), Francisco Franco (Spain), Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe), Mao Zedong (China), Hun Sen (Cambodia or Khmer Republic), and Josef Stalin (USSR).

Nat's uncle?

He even made factual errors relating to long serving equivalents of PMs, or were those 'errors' his sinisterly contrived misinformation?

Nat asked us what countries impose time limits, which he answered himself as the nations of France, Germany, the UK and the US.

In that (I suspect deliberately) vague sentence I have to say this again in this post, Nat was very naughty to the extent of misleading us. And I’ll explain how and why.

At this point we must distinguish prime ministers (and chief ministers) from the republican head of states or presidents. By the by, France has both.

Since we have been talking about the term limit of the chief minister of Penang (or for that matter, the prime minister of Malaysia), we should note there has never been a set term limit for the PM pf Malaya/Malaysia nor one for the CM or MB of any Malaysian state.

As per the Westminster system which does not have CEO-President of a nation like the USA, the prime minister of Britain (or even his PM counterpart in France) also does not have any term limit to his prime ministerial office, contrary to what Nat informed or misinformed us (as to be expected of a PKR-ista, wakakaka).
Anyway, Nat's pathetically poor examples were, I presume, to suggest long tenures bred dictators, instead of telling the truth that it would actually be the other way around, where dictators bred such long tenures.

Of course his rather wicked labelling of Lim Guan Eng as a ‘Dear Leader’ has made clear his prejudice against Guan Eng, associating the Penang CM by that sinister title to Kim Jong-il, the former and late president of North Korea.

Have you heard of any Westminster-styled parliamentary practice or procedure which limits PM or CM/MB to a certain number of terms, say 2 or even 3?

Was Mahathir limited to only two (2) terms?

If Mahathir was not, why didn't clever-by-half Nat Tan object then? Shall we now change the Constitution of Penang and Malaysia to please Nat's wish?

Oh, BTW, instead of Nat's examples of North Korea, the former USSR, etc, what about the terms of Oz's PM John Howard, Britain's PM Margaret Thatcher or PM Tony Blair? Or Germany's Angela Merkel (Chancellor or its equivalent, a PM), etc.

Now, FMT informs us that (extracts):

Last week, Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PPBM) pro tem Vice-President Mukhriz Mahathir proposed limiting the PM’s service to two terms, which is not more than 10 years.

Mukhriz, who was formerly Kedah menteri besar, claimed that the proposal was to counter crisis management and the abuse of power allegedly seen in the Barisan Nasional (BN) administration.

Ahmad Ghazali said the plan had its pros and cons.

“The good thing is that the democratic process of check and balance will be there. The bad thing, however, is the issue of no continuity in leadership.”

Political Analyst Dr Jeniri Amir deemed Mukhriz’s proposal “inappropriate and impractical” as political leaders would not want to step down once they have reached the top.

“Why is it that only now Mukhriz wants to have that proposal when there were calls for his father, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, to step down as PM back then?

“Supporters did not want him to step down and urged him to stay in his seat,” he said, noting that Mahathir held the post for 22 years.

Hmmm, shall we change the Constitution, once again, but this time as advocated by the Son, not the Father?

Looks like Mukhriz and Nat Tan think alike, wakakaka.


  1. most already step down except lks n perhaps mahathir.

    n looks like lge n mahathir did alike, until he bought a no swimming pool bangalooo.

    thats y w r jealous, dap/lims is no diff with umno/mahathirs, no way we can beat them.

  2. A million dollar question - should there be a set term limit for the top job, or for that matter, any jobs of the elected govt?

    This is a non-sensical QUESTION!

    Whether a dictator leads to long office tenure or long office tenure leads to dictatorship is a chicken-&-egg filler, best suits for philosophers to ponder.

    For poor normal people like us, this NON-ISSUE should be viewed from the basic foundation of political maturity. Only then it becomes an issue.

    Thus, a political matured society would have a Cameron resigned when he was no longer wanted, term or no term.

    Similarly, for a banana state in Africa, one can get a elected president self declaring for a life term!

    What gives? The political maturity of the state, stupid!

    So, till the political maturity of the citizen reaches that state, don't u think both of u r playing sand castle along the beach while the tide is rising?

    Talk about syok-sendiri-ism...tsk..tsk..

    1. from the example of your abusive & antagonistic behaviour, no, we haven;t reached political maturity yet, wakakaka

    2. Blunt reality hurts. Right?

      & what does one expect from a true statement?

      Sweet daddy talk? Only in yr dream!

  3. In most Westminster democracies, term limits for the Prime Minister are not an issue, because the Prime Minister's power and authority are subject to many checks and balances. Cabinet decision making is collegial, and the Prime Minister does not personally control a large executing bureaucracy. In Britain, for example, there is just the Prime Minister's Office, which provides administrative support to the PM, but there is no titanic Hydra-like Prime Minister's Department like in Malaysia. All execution is done in the respective Ministries and Departments.

    A few British Prime Ministers in the past had attained tremendous personal influence and authority , but that was more a function of the sheer force of personality, capability and charisma.

    Malaysia today is a mutated parody of a Westminster democracy. Yes, Mahathir bears a lot of original blame, but do not ignore or gloss-over the grave abuses of the current incumbent.

    To the extent the Malaysian PM is today in reality above the law.
    The Attorney General was fired when investigations into possible wrongdoings got uncomfortably close to the PM. His pliable successor promptly declared the PM lily white.
    The investigating task force itself was shut down, and key staff investigators transferred on 24 hours notice, and their careers destroyed.

    There is an urgent need in Malaysia to restore checks and balances on government executive power, starting from the Prime Minister.

    Limiting the allowed number of terms a Prime Minister may serve is a good start.

    1. I agree with most of your points but my argument is that we do NOT react with knee-jerk reactions, in other words we do not throw the baby out with the bath water

      Besides, limiting a PM or CM or MB to two terms require constitutional changes which we suffered a lot, a humongous lot, during Mahathir's time.

      In fact, one of the check & balance institutions, the Senate, was vilely mutilated by Mahathir. In Australia, Gough Whitlam's government was brought down by the Australian Senate when the Upper House refused to pass his supply bill.

      We shouldn't succumb to some peoples' (Nathaniel Tan and Mukhriz) self-motivated-interests to merely and at whims and fancies amend the Constitution like a student's poorly written essay. We should uphold the sanctity of our Constitution (revert back to its original unamended form if possible) which was already grossly abused by Mahathir, and if possible, to restore the Senate to its original composition where it can continue to be a check & balance institution