Malaysians are generally multi-lingual. That’s a statement of fact, not an opinion. Of course, levels of competency vary with each individual but most Malaysians are able to speak at least two languages well, particularly if they are educated.
At least two compulsory languages are taught in all schools – Malay and English. Then, many primary and secondary schools provide an option to learn a third language, be it Mandarin, Tamil, Arabic, French, Japanese, etc.
As they always say, the best way to learn a language is to fully immerse oneself in a society that speaks that language. Malaysians are fortunate because we are able to speak and understand each other in multiple languages. In fact, our sentences are often made up of words from more than one language.
However, the amazing thing is that we do not seem to realise how truly blessed we are. Most Malaysians take our multi-lingualism for granted. We don’t seem to realise that having the ability to speak three or more languages is a boon.
What I truly cannot understand are those who choose to avoid learning a language completely.
There are some who think that it is unnecessary to master the Malay language since it is only primarily used locally, and within the government circles. Work anywhere else and you will hardly find anyone using Malay, be it local or overseas.
There are some who think that it is wrong to master the English language since it is the last vestige of our colonial masters that must be cast off if we are to ever be truly merdeka. By doing this, these people also reject knowledge, since most modern knowledge is transmitted in English.
I am truly thank for for being born in Malaysia, where I had the opportunity to be fully immersed in so many languages.
Language is important. It helps us to understand one another.
It’s that time of the year again – to come up with a list of things that we are unlikely to achieve. But before doing that, I’d like to review my resolutions last year.
It turns out that of the five resolutions that I made last year, I have achieved most of them! Yeay!
I managed to finish my Law degree, with honours. I also made a little more money this year. I managed to change up my daily routine to work less and play more, especially towards the end of the year. Heck, I have a level 22 Awoken Hunter in Destiny and read more than 20 books this year!
So, this coming year, I should really get the following things done:
I have put this off long enough. I should just get things done this year. I must get my forms in this year before the new legislation comes into effect.
I’ve found a healthy outlet for my creative juices – writing articles for the press. I should increase my output though. I should also consider starting my book.
With rising cost of living due to the introduction of GST and the falling MYR, it goes without saying that I should try to increase my income to compensate.
I honestly think that these things should be enough for this coming year. It’s going to be a tough year but I’m hopeful that it’ll be a good year in retrospect.
I had this rather unsatisfying discussion with Prof Johan in Constitutional Law class about anti-hopping laws (good thing it did not come out for my exams). We were learning about Article 10 of the Constitution, particularly in relation to the Nordin Salleh case, when this issue came up.
Now, the Constitution clearly does not recognise any concept of a ‘party’ or a ‘coalition’. So, it is clear that the Constitution only cares about voting for the person as the elected representative – it should not matter which side the person takes as long as he/she takes the side of the people he/she supposedly represents.
That is all fine and good in theory. However, we’re often asked to vote along party lines regardless of which donkey or monkey is running. The reason is that the party will fight for our struggles and not any specific elected person. The party maintains discipline by ensuring that all elected representatives tow official party lines.
The Constitution was drafted with the assumption that people will vote for the person. As the elected representative of the people, he/she should be free to associate, in the best interest of the people. However, in practice, we end up electing the representative of the parties who end up working in the best interest of the party who put them there, not the people.
This is the crux of the problem.
My argument was that while Article 10 right to freedom of association is sacred, this must be balanced against the voice of the voters to be heard – the trouble being the archaic tradition in Malaysia of voting for the party and not the person.
Until the day comes where our electorate are mature enough and our candidates are human enough for us to vote for the person, we will need better controls. However, I too believe in protecting the liberty of a person to associate freely.
The solution that I propose is a simple one.
We strike a balance between the freedom of an individual to associate with that of the voice of the people to be heard. Both rights are sacrosanct and important in a healthy democratic system. So, the simplest solution would be to vacate an MPs seat if he/she changes parties after the elections.
The way I see it, it’s like a sort of an agreement between the MP and the electorate. During campaigning, the MP promises to accomplish certain things in return for the trust that the electorate puts in him/her. If the MP decides to change parties and thus change the objectives that they have promised to accomplish, he/she has reneged on that trust.
So, the proper way would be for the MP the seat to be vacated and to ask for a fresh mandate from the people. This way, the MP is still able to freely associate and the voice of the people can be clearly heard. I call that a win-win.
Now, there is no Constitutional provision for this though there is no reason that any Law that requires the MP to seek for a fresh mandate would be ultra-vires the Consti. That said, it would be painful to enforce this.
If we want to mandate that the seat be vacated upon switching parties, the Constitution would need to be amended to recognise the concept of a party. That would bring a whole world of pain on its own. The same problem would occur if we wish to mandate that an MP shall resign his/her seat when switching parties.
This is where the concept of Constitutional Conventions come in. The best way to solve this problem is to make it a convention. Alternatively, party constitutions can be amended to bar any MP who ran under other party banners from joining a new party without first vacating their seats.
It is actually in the best interest of all parties to avoid jumpers.
However, praying for politicians to act in the best interest of anyone other than themselves, is folly.