Why did Warisan object to the clause on CM appointment?

Question

Accepted Answer

Warisan Objected to the Chief Minister Appointment Clause Due to Concerns Over Democratic Principles and Representation

Parti Warisan objected to a specific clause in a recently passed Bill that removed the provision requiring the governor to appoint a chief minister from the leader of the party with the majority of votes. Warisan's stance is rooted in the belief that the head of government should represent a party that has been directly elected by the majority of voters and actively participated in the electoral process. The party's president, Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal, articulated that allowing a party that did not contest the elections to lead the state is fundamentally contradictory to democratic principles.
Concerns Over Representation and Democratic Mandate

Warisan's primary objection stemmed from the removal of the stipulation that the chief minister must be the leader of the party holding the majority of votes. The party argues that this provision ensures that the leader of the state government is chosen from among those who have sought and received a mandate from the electorate through direct participation in elections. Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal stated that it is "contradictory to the democratic system" to have a party that did not contest the elections leading the government, emphasizing the importance of the people choosing their leader.
Proposal for Clearer Appointment Criteria

In light of the abolished qualifier, Warisan proposed that the state government should establish clearer criteria for appointing a chief minister. The party suggested that this process should involve more than just statutory declarations. Specifically, Warisan indicated a preference for a select committee, composed of elected assemblymen, to help define the qualifications and selection process for the chief minister, thereby ensuring a more robust and democratic appointment.
Inclusion of Nominated Assemblymen Under Anti-Party Hopping Laws

Warisan also raised concerns regarding the exclusion of nominated assemblymen from the anti-party hopping provisions. The party contends that nominated assemblymen possess the same rights and privileges as elected assemblymen, including the right to vote. Therefore, Warisan believes they should also be subject to anti-party hopping laws, requiring them to relinquish their posts if they switch party allegiance, aligning their responsibilities with those of elected representatives.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why did Warisan object to the clause on CM appointment?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends