People do not lack strength; they lack will
– Victor Hugo, French writer, politician
VICTOR Hugo was born in 1802 a few years after the French Revolution. Did he get it wrong? In 1798 it was the peoples’ strength and will that forced the monarchy and politics under the guillotine in one sweeping stroke of the peoples’ will.
“The people may kill, burn, ravage, commit the most frightening cruelties, glorify their hero today and throw him into the gutter tomorrow, it is all the same; the politicians will not cease to vaunt the people’s virtues and to bow to their every decision.”
That was from Gustave Le Bon discussing the French Revolution when the will and strength of the people changed the politics of Europe, and America, forever. It was a time of the supremacy of the peoples’ will.
“It must be remembered that the freedom to which we aspire is the freedom to govern ourselves under a system in which parliamentary institutions shall be exclusively representative of the peoples’ will.”
That reassurance was delivered by Tunku Abdul Rahman (PM1) when he moved the Second Reading of the Federal Constitution Bill, August 15, 1957.
Here the Tunku was obviously referring to the philosophical and esoteric concept of the power in the people which reverberates with surety, guarantee and promise although short-lived especially during the elections.
Surely, he was an incurable optimist. Furthest from the Tunku’s thought was that race, region and religion would soon destroy the foundations of human decency and dignity as a devotion of the will of the people in power.
The thought that the current 222 MPs are committed to be concerned and caring about the will of the people is untenable. Listening to the speeches made in public and in Parliament, the will of the people is never in their agendas.
Malaysia’s population is estimated to be around 34 million citizens in 2025, according to the Department of Statistics Malaysia. The voting population today is approximately 22 million who will be eligible to vote in GE-16.
34 million citizens divided by 222 MPs is approx.153,000 citizens per MP. Realistically, can one MP be concerned and connected with the will of 153, 000 citizens? Impossible!!
In essence, the will of people in power outweighs and outranks the will of the people. The peoples’ will is a parchment promise not practically feasible as the politicians’ will takes precedence and priority all the time.
In many nations today, the ruling class panders to the calls and wishes of the elite/deep state. The people are merely suppliers of labour. They are replaceable spokes in a wheel. And they know it.
But it sounds refreshingly nice and pleasant to talk about the peoples’ will especially during festivities, public holy days, holidays and elections. Sounds politically correct.
In 1990, former president Nelson Mandela said: “Since my release, I have become more convinced than ever that the real makers of history are the ordinary men and women of our country. Their participation in every decision about the future is the only guarantee of true democracy and freedom.”
Mandela was an honest and diehard optimist who did not see the persuasive policies of the elite. Mandela was naïve to the core. That’s why the system kept him alive for 27 years. They had a plan that worked.
But what if voters boycott the elections? Does that translate as the will of the people —arrogance, apathy or anger notwithstanding? Is it easier for the government to weaponize the peoples’ will?
One effective way to weaponize the peoples’ will is to totally ignore their expectations. The other way is to prioritise political power forays usually followed by scandals.
The worst technique available currently in Malaysia is to use race, region and religion to exacerbate efforts to diminish and dissolve the peoples’ will as a dedicated constitutional initiative.
The peoples’ will receives clear enumeration in the nine fundamental liberties in the Federal Constitution. This peoples’ document is supposed to restrain government, not vice versa, paraphrasing Patrick Henry.
Sidebar: Do liberties and rights mean the same thing, or do rights offer certain liberties. Is there a disconnect? Someone pulled the plug.
Tunku Abdul Rahman realised the wisdom and virtue of proclaiming the peoples’ will as supreme while concluding the drafting and preparation of the supreme law of the land on 15 August 1957.
Where have that spirit, substance and soul of the peoples’ will gone? Is it a ghost, or does it have a ghost of a chance to be a sociopolitical fact of life? Our politicians are the sole blame carriers.
In the final analysis, the peoples’ will is predicated upon the rule of law. The supreme law of the land — the Federal Constitution — may have to morph to relevancy when it becomes a feral constitution after unjust captivity and domestication has released it.
The nation will excel if the rule of law is taken seriously and not selectively. The Hadith is very clear on wasiyya (will or testament of the individual) and Qadar (Divine Will) or destiny which influences and dictates outcomes for individuals and the community.
English common law and the Sharia Law need not stare each other down but consider a non-coagulant compromise and co-operation to sustain and maintain the will of the people in the spirit and substance of Article 3(1), Federal Constitution.
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune. The writer can be reached at ChiefJudge@secamtektektribe.org.
