SHAH ALAM - The action of the Unity Government in imposing obligations or conditions in the memorandum of understanding (MoU) for the allocation to the opposition clearly contradicts the spirit of parliamentary democracy.
Parti Pejuang Tanah Air (Pejuang) information chief Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali said that this should not happen if the role of the opposition was to provide checks and balances.
"If the role of the opposition is to provide checks and balances, why then impose conditions for checks and balances? It’s strange, but this is what the so-called reformist government intends to do.
"There are too many negative consequences if any Member of Parliament or Member of the House of Representatives enters an MoU initiated by the Madani Government. It could be labelled as unconstitutional," he said.
Previously, the opposition unanimously rejected the MoU for four main reasons that were said to contradict the Federal Constitution, where several conditions imposed in the document were feared to undermine the rights and privileges of the Malays and Bumiputeras.
Based on the disclosed document, six key points were outlined, including the duration of validity from the date of the MoU, which was applicable until the dissolution of the 15th Parliament or on Dec 19, 2027.
Also included in the key points was an obligation for Perikatan Nasional (PN) that touched on the roles and functions of opposition Members of Parliament as an important component and a pledge that as responsible and competent representatives they must act as accountable and constructive checks and balances.
Rafique added that the most crucial responsibility of a Member of Parliament was not merely the policies of their party but, far more importantly, the aspirations of their constituents.
"It is not an exaggeration to state that the purpose of introducing this MoU is to hinder the opposition from voicing their opinions. It is a sly attempt to silence the voices of the opposition.
"Imposing limitations or restrictions on matters that can be discussed or stated during sessions (which are protected by parliamentary immunity) is an act that should be vigorously opposed by any Member of Parliament, regardless of whether they are from the opposition, the government, or neutral," he said.
He also felt it was odd that the conditions imposed related to speech.
Rafique questioned why Members of the Senate could not speak about the Malays.
"Regarding concerns that Malays are increasingly sidelined from the ability to purchase property in cities, becoming more backward in rural areas, and being pressured in terms of redistricting?
"Can’t Members of the House of Representatives express concerns about issues of pluralism that are becoming more prevalent and discuss issues like LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and groups questioning sexual identity) spreading in the country?" he asked.