Thursday, October 22, 2015

PKR Plan to Fail in No-Confidence Vote

PKR are demonstrating weak leadership. They are crippled by indecision and handicapped by factions. And they are very naïve – they really don't know how to play the political game.
First, their PJ Selatan MP Hee Loy Sian filed a notice to table a motion of no-confidence against PM Najib Razak. Then PKR made a last-minute retraction of the said motion and today, they submitted another one by Opposition leader Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail – even though they know it might not see the light of day in this parliamentary session.
This is expected to be rejected by the House Speaker on technical grounds. As Pandikar Amin Mulia had already advised, a motion filed under Standing Orders 26 and/or 27 needed to be submitted 14 days before the start of a Parliament sitting. Even if it was under Standing Order 15, he, as speaker, still needed to give priority to government affairs. And in Hee’s case, his notice to the Dewan Rakyat was the 25th item in the order paper.
Given the above, the motion against Najib will die prematurely – thanks to PKR’s naivete. 
It is also obvious that PKR aren’t sure how many votes they can command to support the motion. They assume PAS would support and even if PAS said yes, can they be sure?More importantly, can they be trusted? So too the anti-Najib forces within BN. Who will support and how many?
PKR's secretary-general Rafizi Ramli had admitted that getting the no-confidence motion through Dewan Rakyat would be "difficult". In effect, the “battle” was lost even before it started.
If I am not mistaken, a two-third majority is needed in the 222-seat Dewan Rakyat to push the said motion through. PKR had previously said they have Pakatan Harapan’s 72 votes as well as PAS’ 16 votes and they needed only 25 BN parliamentarians to cross over to support the motion in order to force Najib to step down. 
I think I still know how to do my sums – which means PKR’s calculations didn’t add up! The purported total came to 113 votes whereas two-thirds constitute 167 votes. No way can PKR get Najib out! It is a futile exercise.
This is a classic example of “failing to plan” – therefore, PKR had planned to fail!
Besides, Malaysians had given the mandate to BN (Note: BN may only have 47% of Malaysians voting for them but they still command 133 seats). So, why do the opposition want to table a motion of no-confidence against the government when there is a zilch chance of success? The act of toppling an elected government is serious business – are PKR really ready? It looked like a half-hearted attempt!
The best way forward, actually, is to get ALL Pakatan Harapan plus PAS MPs to attend Parliament during the Budget 2016 debate tomorrow and vote against it at every opportunity.
Even BN backbencherss should put national interest before the Najib interest – they can vote down the budget or if they are scared shitless, they can abstain from voting in favor of the budget.
And should a miracle happen and Najib's budget is rejected by Parliament, it would effectively mean he has lost the confidence of the House. And the PM must then tender his resignation, together with his Cabinet in order for the Yang diPertuan Agong to appoint another prime minister or request for parliamentary dissolution.
To be honest, I am not optimistic. I am not even hopeful. We have an awful lot of stupid parliamentarians. And we can blame it on the 43% of the voting population! Friday is going to be just another day.
Yesterday, I was in Petaling Jaya to deliver a CC#7 speech titled “Amazonian Women” at the Scope Toastmasters meeting. I thought it was a little disorganized but it was still a decent speech, I suppose. An enjoyable meeting nonetheless!


And then I was at the Inti International College, Subang Jaya campus for the IICS Toastmasters meeting. I was volunteered to give an impromptu speech and for my effort, I won a Best Table Topics Speaker ribbon.


The meeting started on time but it didn’t end on time. I also noticed a disturbing distraction – the habit of engaging in a dialogue between Toastmaster and Speaker and Evaluator and Speaker during the meeting proper. I would give this meeting a 3.5 score over 10.

No comments: