Lim Kit Siang is not telling us the full story.
Promise #14 of the manifesto is to upgrade the MACC though constitutional amendments to bring about a Commission “that is recognised in our Federal Constitution” and to grant the agency autonomy and powers to appoint its own officials.
However, promise #16 talks about the need for appointments to the Human Rights Commission, Election Commission of Malaysia, the MACC and the judiciary to be approved by a parliamentary committee.
By skating over promise #16, Kit Siang gave us the impression that because the Federal Constitution of Malaysia has yet to be amended, Mahathir is “politically wrong but constitutionally correct” as the MACC has yet to be given powers to appoint its own officials.
Truth is, Mahathir is “politically wrong but constitutionally correct” even if promise #14 were never included in the manifesto.
PETALING JAYA: Lim Kit Siang has been put in his place by the man he hand-picked to lead government as the country’s seventh Prime Minister.
And he did the hand-picking without consulting a bulk of the DAP’s Central Executive Committee (CEC) or even members of the party.
He is now saying that Mahathir was “politically wrong but constitutionally correct” to unilaterally appoint Latheefa Koya as Chief Commissioner of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).
But was the senior Lim also not “politically wrong but constitutionally correct” to unilaterally promise the role of Prime Minister to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad?
Is the DAP constitution not silent on such matters, and does that not make the move “constitutionally correct” given Kit Siang’s seniority and advisory role in the party?
And while we’re on the topic of “political correctness,” is it also not true that Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy conviction – which Anwar, the late Karpal Singh and even the senior Lim insisted was politically motivated – was “politically wrong but constitutionally correct?”
So why the need to highlight Latheefa’s appointment as being “politically wrong but constitutionally correct,” when almost everything Kit Siang has either done or opposed all this while has been “politically wrong but constitutionally correct?”
The crux of the issue Pakatan Harapan’s failure to fulfil its manifesto pledge.
And that failure has everything to do with the arrogance and despotic attitudes displayed by Mahathir, the very man Kit Siang hand-picked to lead government.
According to Kit Siang, Latheefa’s appointment violates promise #14 of Harapan’s GE14 election manifesto since it was not validated by Parliament.
“Those who protested that Latheefa’s appointment as MACC chief violated the spirit of the pledge in Harapan manifesto are not wrong…
“I am sure that if Latheefa had not been the person involved in the present controversy, she would be in the very forefront of the ruckus criticising any appointment of MACC chief in a similar fashion as her present appointment.
“In fact, going by this logic, the appointment of Mohd Shukri Abdull on May 18, 2018, would have violated Promise 14 of the Harapan manifesto,” he said.
However, he is not telling us the full story.
Promise #14 of the manifesto is to upgrade the MACC though constitutional amendments to bring about a Commission “that is recognised in our Federal Constitution” and to grant the agency autonomy and powers to appoint its own officials.
However, promise #16 talks about the need for appointments to the Human Rights Commission, Election Commission of Malaysia, the MACC and the judiciary to be approved by a parliamentary committee.
By skating over promise #16, Kit Siang gave us the impression that because the Federal Constitution of Malaysia has yet to be amended, Mahathir is “politically wrong but constitutionally correct” as the MACC has yet to be given powers to appoint its own officials.
Truth is, Mahathir is “politically wrong but constitutionally correct” even if promise #14 were never included in the manifesto.
Pledges #14 and #16 are mutually exclusive of one another, in that PH politicians who made them vowed to fulfil each and every manifesto pledge separately so long as neither of them contravened one another and (or) the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.
It follows, that referring the appointment of Latheefa to a parliamentary committee in accordance with promise #16 is a must unless PH can prove it was prevented from doing so due to unforeseen circumstances.
Previously, PH claimed that it could not fulfil its pledge to do away with PTPTN loan repayments and tolls due to the need to trim the “unforeseen excess” in national debt.
So what is the “unforeseen circumstance” this time around?
What is it that Kit Siang and his DAP failed to foresee that is preventing them from referring Latheefa’s appointment to a parliamentary committee?
Come to think of it, why in the first place has the DAP yet to propose a bill to grant the MACC powers to appoint its own officials?
Was Kit Siang waiting for team Anwar to trigger a coup before appointing his own person as head of the MACC to go after Mahathir and his children?
Or was he waiting for Mahathir to kick the bucket first?
Why ask the opposition if it is willing to support such a bill when you yourself never proposed it, uncle Lim?
RJ RITHAUDEEN
