What is Ongkili grumbling about ? Anwar, the de facto leader of Pakatan Rakyat is not going to de-stablize the government of Barisan Nasional. Rather, Anwar want to take over the government. Get rid of Barisan Nasional to be specific.
If Ongkili is worry about frog-jumping (so called party-hopping) ministers, he must have forgotten that frog-jumping started in Sabah when during previous election, some elected representatives from Parti Bersatu Sabah jumped ship and sailed with USNO. Those incident caused the down-fall of PBS.
That just illustrates how volatile is the loyalty of Sabah politicians. And it is only natural for Anwar to entice the Barisan Nasional elected representatives to abandon BN and joined PR. Anwar however, has been very cleared from the beginning. Those party-hopper will not be PAID for. They must hopped on their on accord and free will.
It's only BN who will paid traitors from opposition party to join BN and create downfall for the ruling opposition party. That was history. Both members of PR and some elected representatives from BN are aware that now is the right time to change the government from BN to PR. The possibility of that happening is very real and very high.
If Sabah and Sarawak does not have fair share in the government administration, might as well they swing their support to PR. Who knows, PR may offer better package for Sabah and Sarawak.
If you like this informative post, please subscribe to my full RSS Feed
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Extracted from: thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/4/15/nation/20080415190625&sec=nation (Apr 15, 2008)
Ongkili: Anwar wants to destabilise Govt
By LOH FOON FONG
PETALING JAYA: PKR adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been criticised by Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) for continuing to talk about MPs crossing over to Pakatan Rakyat.
PBS deputy president Datuk Dr Maximus Ongkili said Anwar's actions were only intended to destabilise the Government.
“Why does he continue to engage in destabilising the Government by enticing members to cross floors? Not only is this unprincipled but downright dangerous.
“Why doesn’t he let the Government do its job just as Barisan Nasional allows the Opposition state governments to do their work? They should cooperate and let the Government run its show,” he said during his visit to the Meteorological Department here Tuesday.
Ongkili, who is also Science, Technology and Innovation Minister, was asked to comment on Anwar’s statement that Pakatan Rakyat was ready to form the Federal Government and was waiting for the right time and numbers.
On Monday night after a rally to celebrate the end of his ban from active politics at the Sultan Sulaiman Club field, Anwar said Pakatan Rakyat had already secured the number of MPs but wanted to form the Government with a strong majority.
He added that none of the MPs had been bought over.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Extracted from: theborneopost.com/?p=33305 (Mar 31, 2008)
Government’s dilemma enacting anti-hop law
By Datuk Seri Herman Luping
THERE are those who are against the introduction of the proposed anti-hop law in the country, and there are those in favour of it. Those against cite the problem of going against the fundamental right of man to free association as is provided in the federal constitution; those in favour argue that the enactment of anti-hop law would ensure a stable democratic institution that is free from corruption and a transparent government.
They further argue that if it is the wish of the people, then the question of going against the fundamental right to free association does not arise.
Two prominent leaders are not in favour of the enactment. In Sarawak, Dato Sri Dr James Masing was quoted as saying that the anti-hop law would be against the federal constitution in respect of free association with any party or organisation; and in Sabah, Datuk Masidi Manjun expressed similar sentiments.
The popular opinion so far expressed in the newspapers, however, is in favour of such an enactment.
Party-hopping is not new to the Sabah political scene. During the PBS administration under Datuk Seri Joseph Pairin, the government had a traumatic experience caused by the action of selfish and unscrupulous politicians who did not have any qualms about changing sides.
The first time was in 1985. The PBS obtained a simple majority in the State Legislative Assembly against the Berjaya party. The PBS formed the government and immediately PBS assemblymen were targeted to switch sides so that the PBS government would fall.
History concerning this episode would show that two assemblymen, namely the elected independent candidate of Moyog but was supported by the PBS machine and more particularly by Datuk Clarence Bongkos Malakun who campaigned for him during the election, and the elected candidate for Bingkor, decided to cross over to Usno.
The two assemblymen were taken to Kuala Lumpur. They were encamped in a big hotel and tried to influence the assemblyman for Kiulu to join them. Had the Kiulu assemblyman agreed to fly over to KL to join the two, the PBS government would have fallen.
The telephone conversation of the ‘leader’ who wanted to be known as Mr Brown was monitored in PBS headquarters when he phoned the Kiulu assemblyman giving him direction on how to avoid PBS Youth. From the conversation we gathered at the time, police personnel were involved in the party-hopping exercise.
A third person, a non-Bumiputera assemblyman was seen to be on his way to KL to join the two. Before he managed to fly over, however, the chief minister abruptly dissolved the assembly and called for a new election in 1986. The takeover by the opposition party, Usno, was averted. PBS was returned with a bigger majority at the 1986 election.
It was because of this traumatic experience presented to the PBS leadership by selfish assemblymen that the party president Datuk Seri Joseph Pairin Kitingan decided to introduce an anti-hop law in the state constitution.
I was the state attorney general at the time and it fell on me to prepare the anti-hop enactment. I studied the constitutional provisions on anti-hop laws in other parts of the Commonwealth countries and found that many states in India had provisions for anti-hop laws in their constitutions.
But the one that interested me was the provision of the same law in the Singapore constitution. Indeed, the wording in the Sabah anti-hop enactment was almost an exact copy of the Singapore’s provisions. There is a difference of course between Sabah and Singapore. Whereas the first, Sabah has a federal constitution to contend with, the latter, Singapore was and is a nation of its own.
The Sabah enactment was contested in court and the Federal Court found that the Sabah enactment was ultra vires the federal constitution and declared it null and void.
If Sabah was part of the BN government at that time, it is debatable whether the Sabah enactment on anti-hop law would have been tested in the Federal Court. It was possible that a suitable ‘Enabling Act’ would have been enacted in the federal constitution so that amendment to states’ constitution on the matter of anti-hop law would have been possible.
As it was, the decision of the Federal Court made the Sabah anti-hop law redundant and of no effect.
The second time when the PBS administration under Datuk Seri Joseph Pairin experienced selfish party-hoppers was after the election in 1994. Pairin was sworn in after a long delay for him to enter the Istana gate. And soon after, ‘agents’ were roaming everywhere looking for likely assemblymen who would want to change sides. Three were ‘cornered’, enough to cause the fall of the PBS government.
The first was the assemblyman for Beaufort; the second was the assemblyman for Tenom and the third was the appointed assemblyman from Labuan.
‘Agents’ from Sarawak were believed to be the persons who were in the forefront of ‘enticing’ the three assemblymen. A huge amount of money was said to have been paid, but this latter was conjectural and might not be true. But the presence of ‘agents’ from Sarawak was actually clever.
Agents from Sarawak were believed to have been used in the 1985 episode too, just as they were used in 1994. The use of agents who were not Sabahans was clever in that no one in Sabah could be blamed for enticing or buying assemblymen.
The three persons caused the fall of the PBS government. Umno and other BN component parties took over the governance of the state. And there was also another side effect as a result of the fall of PBS in 1994.
The party split into three ways and today, the PBS splinter parties are still there — the PBRS of Kurup and Upko of Tan Sri Bernard Dompok.
There is a question mark as to which of the two splinter parties have the honour of being the ‘first’ to move away from PBS and join the BN. Both were later awarded the nation’s high award — Tan Sri, whilst the original leader and founder of PBS, their former boss, was awarded a state award, a Datuk Seri Panglima, or first class Datukship only. Someone told me that such is the vagaries of politics.
Sabah is actually a land of party-hoppers. This phenomenon started a long time ago — in 1967 to be exact. In the 1967 election, Usno obtained 14 seats, Upko 12 and SCA, 5. There was one independent returned: Datuk Yap Pak Leong who defeated the incumbent chief minister Datuk Peter Lo.
When the Cabinet was formed, Upko leaders were excluded. The Cabinet consisted of the Usno and SCA leaders only.
The combined strength of Usno and SCA in the legislative assembly was 19, giving the two parties a simple majority. The Usno adviser from Kedah apparently wanted to amend the state constitution and for this a two-third majority in the legislative assembly was needed.
So ‘agents’ were employed to entice Upko assemblymen. Only two were needed.
The first person so enticed was the assemblyman from Kiulu. This man then had the single honour of being the first turncoat in the history of Sabah’s party-hoppers. He was later made a state minister although it was said that he only had a Primary 2 education.
His inclusion in the cabinet was partly to reward him for his ‘gallant’ turncoat exercise and partly to make up for the lack of Kadazan representation in the Cabinet.
The second turncoat was the assemblyman from Kuala Penyu.
Part of the reason why a two-third majority was needed was to amend the constitutional provisions on expatriate officers.
Specifically, the adviser from Kedah wanted to get rid of the white attorney general. So he asked him (the white AG) to draft the bill to be introduced in the legislative assembly. The AG saw what it was all about. He resigned. And went back to his country.
The stage was then set for the formation of the Sabah Foundation, the one and only biggest timber concessionaire in the country with the adviser as the first executive director.
‘Frog culture’ as the party-hopping was later called was in fact peculiar only to the Sabah political scene. The popular belief then was that Sabah politicians became Yang Berhormat not so much because they wanted to help the people or the country, but the big ‘bonus’ they expect to get. And more if they were ‘enticed’ to jump over to another party.
The question of moral, integrity and principle did not come into the equation for these people, they said. It seems to me that an anti-hop law is a necessity if we are to improve the performance of our YBs in the country.
The federal constitution should be amended to provide for an anti-hop law. I agree with the many views which are in favour of such a law in Malaysia.
