eLawyer Law Blog Forum

by Donovan Lee Shyun Hyn

There are always pros and cons to an Act of Parliament. The notion that one cannot have the best of both worlds is indeed true and is applicable in this situation as what is good for the Executive may not go down well with the rest of the population. The proposed Race Relations Act is one fine example. Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal, the Minister of Unity, Culture, Arts and Heritage in his interview with the New Sunday Times, contended that the proposed Act is specific in which it would be able to deal better with issues of religion and sensitivities of race as compared to the Sedition Act or Internal Security Act which is too general, thus creating loopholes to prosecute alleged offenders.

One might think why do we need to formulate such Act after having achieved 51 years of Independence? Wouldn’t the world community laugh at us for the failure to govern race relations despite the existence of various policies and bodies which were meant to instill unity among Malaysians of all races and religions? I certainly have my reservations for that.

Great Britain was formed in the year 1707 with the passing of the Acts of Union which merged the two parliaments of England and Scotland while Canada was formed in the year 1867 by virtue of British North America Acts. They have both enacted Race Relations Act in which the former was established in 1965 and the latter in 1991. These countries were created way before Malaysia was born but the Legislatures see the necessity of enacting the Act which makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin. Hence, the issue of humiliation does not arise here.

(more…)

 Part III

Thirdly, the whole idea that it’s unthinkable and dishonourable to switch parties stems from the idea that the party is always correct, and the representative should tow-the-line. This idea, unfortunately, is ingrained in Malaysian society, that both capable BN and Opposition candidates lose out because of blind party loyalty. People expect representatives to conform with their parties’ principles, for better or worse. People expect the political freedom of representatives to be restricted by their parties.

Such is the chain reaction effect of perpetuating a party-politic dependent democratic system, which is what the APHA does. People need to grow to have faith in their representatives, instead of relying on their favoured parties to control the representatives. For if we embrace the idea that party politics is the order of the day, and the law needs to entrench that order, why not just replace the whole electoral system with a pure party-based elections? No candidates, just vote for the parties. The party will later choose any of its member to fills its rank. Doesn’t matter who he is, since the only concern is not what the person believes, but that the person believes religiously to a particular party’s line. Isn’t such a system more effective in guaranteeing parties won’t lose control of their representatives once voted in?

Lastly, I find the APHA unfairly shifting the blame solely on the representatives. Since we place political parties on the pedestal already, shouldn’t it be the responsibilities of parties to choose their candidates wisely? If parties expect people to vote for their candidates, shouldn’t they be responsible of ensuring that the candidates chosen is a true party loyalist?

The APHA is thus hypocritical in the sense that it perpetuates the idea of party-politics, and yet effectively recognize that political parties are not strong enough to maintain loyalty and cohesiveness amongst its members. It’s an easy way out, isn’t it? Simply choose any Tom, Dick or Harry to run as candidate. No need to check his credentials. Why? Because if he goes rogue, the law will kick him out.

(more…)