http://dapmalaysia.org  

3 Reasons Why I Voted Against The Constitution of the State Of Malacca(Amendment) Enactment 2003   Press Statement by Betty Chew Gek Cheng (Kota Melaka, Saturday): I refer to State Opposition Leader Sim Tong Him's statement on 3.10.2003  over the controversy of his abstention in the vote for the Constitution of the State of Malacca(Amendment) Enactment that was decided in the Melaka State Assembly on 29.9.2003. Sim had justified his reasons for abstaining as correct and referred to me as causing the party's 4 State Assemblymen not being able to take a common united stand during the voting. In my past 4 years as a wakil rakyat, I had concentrated on serving my  constituents and refused to get involved in any internal party politics. Any opinions I have over certain decisions, I have kept them private and refused to make them public out of respect to Sim and the party. I am therefore surprised why Sim should suddenly drag me into the controversy over his abstention when I have never publicly questioned Sim's decisions. I have no alternative but to put on record the reasons why I oppose and shall continue to oppose the recent constitutional amendment. Sim had disclosed to me before the voting his reasons for not being able to oppose the constitutional amendment tabled by Melaka Chief Minister Datuk Mohd Ali Rustam. I would not make public Sim's reason for abstaining out of respect for him as it is only proper for Sim himself to reveal the reason at the time of his choosing. However I told Sim then that I have no choice but to oppose because I wanted to debate. I believe that I am correct in opposing this constitutional amendment to  fulfill my role and responsibility as a wakil rakyat, legislator and lawyer. This constitutional amendment seeks to remove one of the powers of the the Melaka State Constitution under Article 11 to decide the number of seats in the State Assembly. This is clearly stated in the Constitution Amendment Bill's explanatory statement where the intention is "to delete the reference to the number of elected members of the Legislative Assembly in Article 11 since the number is proposed to be provided in an Enactment". In other words, any future increase or reduction in the number of seats do not require a 2/3 majority to amend the constitution. Only a simple majority is required to amend an ordinary law. Even the Chief Minister admitted as much during the debate when he said that by removing the powers of the Constitution to decide the number of seats, it will make it easier to increase or reduce the number of seats in future without needing a 2/3 majority. First, as a wakil rakyat, I am elected to be the voice of my constituents to fight for their rights and defend their interests. Such efforts can only succeed if we can promote and protect democracy. This constitutional amendment does not serve to promote nor protect democracy. Further, there are no such provisions in the Federal Constitution or in the Penang State Constitution, which still requires a 2/3 majority to change the number of seats. We must understand why the original framers of the Malacca  State Constitution insisted, as in all states and the Federal Constitution, that any change in the number of seats require a constitutional amendment. As the number of seats deals with elections, this involves a basic condition of democracy. Therefore any change in the number of seats must be decided by constitutional amendment which requires a 2/3 majority. Otherwise what is there to stop future governments from simply reducing the number of seats as they like when they no longer require a 2/3 majority? The Malacca Constitution has been diluted with the removal of its powers to decide the number of seats. Clearly democracy has been equally affected when the 2/3 majority safeguards have been removed? I would therefore fail in my duty to my constituents to promote and protect democracy if I do not oppose this constitutional amendment. Secondly as a legislator involved in passing laws that affect the people in Melaka, I am bound by my oath of office I took when I was elected as a State Assemblywoman. I still remember the oath of office I took under Article 21(1) of the Malacca State Constitution which reads, "I...........having being elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Malacca do solemnly swear that I will faithfully discharge my duties a such to the best of my ability, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the State of Malacca and to Malaysia, and that I will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the State of Malacca." I would be failing to discharge my duty as a legislator and my oath of  office to " preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the State of Malacca" if I do not oppose this constitutional amendment that seeks to attack and undermine the Constitution's status and position. Finally as a lawyer, I am duty bound to ensure the rule of law. The rule of law comes from the highest law of the land, our State Constitution. The most basic duty to uphold the rule of law is preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against any dilution or removal of its powers. I would therefore fail in my duty as a legal practitioner if I fail to oppose this constitutional amendment that would affect the rule of law. I hope that the public understands and supports my opposition to this constitutional amendment based on my role as a wakil rakyat, legislator and lawyer. I wish to state I do not regret opposing this constitutional amendment and if necessary would vote against it again. I also do not wish to engage in any further public discussion on this matter as it is best to be discussed by the party internally. Finally, it is the for the public to judge whether opposing or abstaining on this constitutional amendment is the correct position. (4/10/2003) * Chew Gek Cheng, DAP Wanita Chair And State Assemblywoman For Durian Daun Betty