Anyone can
recall the original ideals of what an elected Presidency was supposed to be?
There was a time when there was a fear that an elected govt could turn rogue.
So a second key in the form of an elected president was conceived to check on
the elected govt. Please register this word ‘elected’ into your brain, hard
wired it as it is the crux of the whole elected presidency. The elected
president must be elected to have the mandate from the people to check on an
elected govt. Simple to understand? A non elected president, one that is not
elected, does not have the moral and legal authority to check on an elected
govt.
The reason
is simple and logical. How can a president that is not elected, does not have
the mandate from the people going to check on an elected govt? The elected govt
will show the president the middle finger. Who do you think you are? Where is
your authority? Who gives you the authority when one is just appointed by
political convenience to be the president? See, an elected president is the key
to what an EP is all about. If a president is not elected, on what ground could
he check on the elected govt?
So the EP
schemed was born and an election is mandatory, even if against a non interested
candidate in the first EP election. The people must cast their votes to give
the president the authority and mandate, even if it is 35%, it is better than
none. Some may question whether a 35% EP has more mandate than a publicly
elected govt with more than 60% or more popular votes. See the slippery part
about this thing called elected and mandate of the people?
We have seen
two walkovers in electing an EP. Both Nathan and Halimah were not elected by
the people. So got mandate over an elected govt?
Things get
more fuzzy and slippery when an EP, elected by the people, with the mandate of
the people, can be overruled by a Presidential Advisory Committee made up of
appointees that were not elected by the people. What mandate or authority does
a bunch of appointees, unelected, over an elected President, elected by the
people? You tell me lah? Gila or not?
And the
latest Malay President that is technically and legally not a Malay, at best
half a Malay, is the elected President. Oops, not elected, because it is a
walkover. Got mandate or not? What happened to this crucial mandate that was
necessary to have the authority over an elected govt? Never mind? Not important
anymore? Walkover also can as long as he/she is the EP. Never mind for he/she
can be overruled by a non elected PAC.
What is
happening? Is this the EP that was originally designed, to have the mandate of
the people to exercise a veto right to checkmate an elected govt? Does a
walkover EP have the moral authority over an elected govt? Or this is no longer
important anymore since the EP, even if elected, can be checkmated by a non
elect PAC?
What
happened to the word, ‘elected’ and mandate of the people? Walkover also means
got people’s mandate, elected by the people?
What do you
think?