Wan Junaidi bares political soul at Bicara Tokoh

BY GOH PEI PEI & NATASHA JEE

TAN Sri Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar is an eminent name in the country’s political landscape; a seven-term MP, serving Batang Lupar from 1990 to 2004 and Santubong until 2022.

He was appointed Dewan Rakyat deputy speaker from 2008 to 2013 before being entrusted with several positions in the Federal Cabinet; where he began shouldering responsibilities as the Deputy Home Minister from 2013 to 2015, before being appointed as the Minister of Natural Resources and Environment in 2018.

He was subsequently tasked with being the Minister of Entrepreneur Development and Cooperatives during the Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin-led government from March 2020 to August 2021.

Wan Junaidi was then appointed as the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Parliament and Law) during Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob’s administration, from August 30, 2021, to November 24, 2022.

After that, he went on a temporary retirement from the world of politics and spent more time with his family. However, his extensive experience and in-depth knowledge of the parliamentary system made his services highly sought after. He was then appointed as the 19th President of the Senate in June 15, 2023.

Looking at his career journey, Wan Junaidi stands out among other political figures. He started out as a senior police officer and fought against communists in the jungle before becoming a lawyer and politician.

Throughout his tenure in the Cabinet, he achieved various accomplishments, particularly the implementation of the Anti-Party Hopping Law and advocating for the restoration of Sarawak’s rights under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).

Here is in-depth discussion with Wan Junaidi at the ‘Bicara Tokoh’ organised by the National Professors Council (NPC) on Friday (Jan 19), on the Anti-Party Hopping Law and Stability of the Government.

The session was moderated by NPC Fellow Dr Muhammad Asri Mohd Ali.

Muhammad Asri: Tan Sri, could you share a bit about your experiences before becoming a politician, particularly witnessing battles with the communists and the like when you were a police officer?

Wan Junaidi: I would say I have faced a challenging journey in life. I started my education in a ‘sekolah pondok’ di Sadong Jaya. Later, we moved to Kuching where we bought land and my mother worked as a rubber tapper. Due to financial struggles, I stopped schooling after Form Three and decided to go look for a job.

I went for an interview and they asked why I wanted to work when my results were very good. I told them I needed to work and couldn’t bear to see my mother continue tapping rubber. Eventually, I got a job as a technical assistant in road engineering design with the Public Works Department (JKR). However, I quit after one of my colleagues was arrested by the communists while working in the jungle; all his belongings were seized – as I didn’t want to end up like him.

Then, I joined the police force, and in 1978, I was promoted to Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP). At that time, there were only four ASPs in all of Kuching. However, I was required to transfer to Kuala Lumpur, which I was not willing to do, especially to the traffic division. I remember saying at that time that the area was a place where corruption thrived, and I refused to go. Eventually, I decided to go abroad to study.

After 13 years in the police force and 14 years in government service, I spent 14 years attending school as a student again. I studied and became a practitioner of law. Later, I became involved in politics, thinking that I could change the world – as the issue of corruption became a significant problem for me. That’s why I entered politics.

I spent over 30 years in Parliament. In 2022, I decided to retire. However, upon the Prime Minister’s invitation, I returned to Parliament as the Dewan Negara president, with the task of transforming Parliament. I was determined to implement what I wanted and deemed necessary, with the advice of the Prime Minister. That’s my story.

I observed that when Tan Sri speaks in Parliament, no one really dares to interrupt because Tan Sri speaks and argues with complete yet easily understandable facts. If Tan Sri can reflect, what sweet memories does Tan Sri have at Parliament?

I have been a MP from August 1990 until October 2022. Throughout the 32 years as a MP, I see political stability as something crucial as it ensures positive effects on the economy and good governance. It provides a sense of security for politicians and the administration of the country. As a government administrator, one can focus on other more important matters, for the people’s well-being, economy and other development progress.

The rise of the opposition in the country began with (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim’s departure from Umno in 1998.  From that time until 2009, the country’s political situation was not greatly disturbed despite the presence of opposition and other various challenges – this was also because the Emergency Ordinance (EO) was yet to be abolished.

At that time, we thought we were mature enough to become a democracy that would not be swayed by rumours and could assess whether news is true or not. Unfortunately, after the 14^th General Election (GE14) in 2018, we realised that this was a significant problem.

With so many quarters, parties sharing their thoughts, views or opinions out there, whether true or not (is no longer that important for some readers); while many also created their own portals and spread various news.

So, problems like this are very prominent, especially in the era of Covid-19, where we see many so-called experts coming out, producing their own reviews. But unfortunately, these experts only refer to one perspective. That’s why my book came out with the hope of explaining it from all angles. For example, requesting a Parliamentary session, questioning it from a legal and practical standpoint, whether a Parliamentary session can be held.

For instance, during the Covid-19, social distancing of one meter was required, in which only half of the members can sit in the Chamber. The question is, can half (of the MPs) sit inside, and the other half outside, or can technology be used, such as video conferencing, and so on. The question is, our laws were established in 1956, stating that every member of Parliament must sit in the Chamber. Voting must be done in the Chamber; there is no immunity. So, that’s why the parliamentary session cannot be held as desired because our laws are still outdated, enacted in 1956, and yet we also have to comply with the health conditions. Due to all these constraints, blame is placed on the government, when in reality, it is due to the parliamentary laws themselves.

Secondly, regarding opinions or views. Even though someone is prominent, holds a position, a senior lawyer, but in that position, he or she could not also be 100 per cent accurate regarding the rules of the Chamber itself.

For example, calling the government ‘tebuk atap’ (backdoor) which in my book, I explained that there is no basis for this because what is relevant is who was chosen in the Dewan Rakyat to be the Prime Minister.

So, if everyone in the Dewan Rakyat chooses the (particular person) as the Prime Minister at that time, even from another party – because if you read the constitution correctly, there is no mention of the party – and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong can appoint a person as the Prime minister based on the majority support of the members of the Dewan Rakyat.

 So, calling someone a ‘tebuk atap’ government is not correct.

“Tebuk atap” is a Malay idiom that literally translates to “poking holes in the roof.” In a political context, it is used metaphorically to refer to attempts to undermine or topple a government, usually through internal conflicts, dissent, or political maneuvering.

As for the statutory (SD) declaration, it is never meant to change or overthrow a government, the Agong used it for certainty. So, saying that using the SD can change the government is actually wrong.

In the Westminster-style Parliament, one can propose a vote of no confidence if someone or his government is found to have no majority support in the Chamber. The vote of no confidence is under Articles 40 and 43; then he falls as Prime Minister and must resign. That decision is made in the constitution and decided by the court. So, it means to legitimise a government only in the Chamber, not with the SD. But unfortunately, social media is too active, Malaysia is a country that uses a lot of social media. So, things like this (which had been misinterpreted) have been spread around and we are very influenced by views and thoughts, claimed to be from the experts, but in reality, they don’t know much.  So, this is the problem we have now; practitioners of democracy need to know the truth about where democracy stands, whether it functions or not in this era.

We had never seen a change in government in the middle of a term until February 2020 (when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad resigned as Prime Minister). Then, we introduced the Anti-Party Hopping law with the aim of ensuring political stability. But, lately, we have heard of MPs changing their support, which their moves might not be covered by this Anti-Party Hopping Law. So, what could be the weaknesses that have occurred in the Anti-Party Hopping Act, and how to overcome them?

When Tun M resigned on February 24, 2020, I was actually disappointed; as he had only governed for a very short 22 months. Then, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin became the Prime Minister… At that time we all think about achieving political stability.

I was down for a month also as I lost my position and opinion – before feeling optimistic again about having a two-party system in Malaysia, namely from Barisan Nasional (BN) and Pakatan Harapan (PH). If PH does not govern well, it will be criticised by BN for a period of four or five years according to the parliamentary term. That was my opinion at that time.

After that, Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said proposed a law that will allow elections to be recalled, but I opined that it is not suitable. Therefore, I think it is better for us to create a bill to prevent party hopping. I started drafting it from September to April 2022. I studied the laws of Australia, England, among others. I looked for their weaknesses and strengths. So, when I drafted the law (for Malaysia), I addressed all those laws (referring to other countries) in the draft. I engaged with MPs, universities, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and others. It was the only bill in the country that was done with a lot of engagements.

When it reached the Cabinet, about four to five members disagreed, particularly on the part, where a member who disobeys the party’s orders can challenge his position. If not follow the whip’s instructions, he will also lose his position as an MP. These were the concerns of those few persons who disagreed earlier.

Due to the-then Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob’s desire for consensus, I presented the draft up to five times – which has never happened before. I almost gave up and said that if it could not be done, I would stop being the Minister of Law. Why waste time seeking consensus? Why not just use the majority? But he (Sabri) insisted it must be based on consensus.

However, he (Sabri) also did not want the bill to be cancelled, thus, instructed the Attorney-General (AG) to draft another bill to amend Article 10 to allow the government to create an anti-party hopping bill under Parliament, not the Constitution.

What I had drafted long ago was a change to the Constitution but the one (what had been amended) changed only the amending Article 10 for party hopping. Even though I told Sabri that the act would not be permanent, and we can face a problem – if people disagree with it, it can be abolished at any time in Parliament. And at that time, BN and PH also disagreed with the act that the AG’s chamber had drafted at that time.

So, the problem now is that those items that had been rejected (excluded) in the bill have now become a burden – which is a MP who, against the party’s orders, will not lose his position as MP.  

If we had put it as I proposed at first (which is stricter), this thing would not have happened. I have known it as a weakness since September 2021 because we saw (what happened) it in India and England.

I had already predicted (what happened now) in 2021 as I had warned the Cabinet about it during the administration when I presented the draft of the proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution related to the Anti-Hopping Law in a Cabinet meeting.

At that time, I had already identified any possible loopholes in the draft based on my intensive study of how similar acts are practiced in United Kingdom, India and others.

When the Cabinet rejected the original draft, I had to renegotiate with all political parties and revamp. So, the problem is that those items that had been excluded (rejected in the original draft) have now become a burden – where any MPs could express support for the opposing bloc in the House of Representatives even if they do not leave the party.

Can Tan Sri share your opinion regarding the recent proposed Fixed-term Parliament Act?

The recent proposal for a Fixed-term Parliament Act (FTPA) to ensure political stability in the country is necessary; however, it is not ‘something easy to do it’ as it requires constitutional amendment to allow the passing of any law seeking or creating a fixed term for Parliament.

Some said there is no need for the Federal Constitution to be amended, but (this is not true); because as long as there are contradictions or inconsistent (with federal law), it can be brought to court or become void.

Thus, there is a need to carefully consider the constitutionality of the proposal as well as taking into consideration every suggestion and view. But, the proposed FTPA is necessary to put a stop to any attempts to topple the government, especially with what had happened in the country between 2018 and 2022.

Currently, there are two ways or mechanisms that can cause Parliament to be dissolved early; of which the first, is through a vote of no confidence in the Dewan Rakyat, where 112 votes will be needed, which is half of the 222 MPs. Another one is by tabling a motion to dissolve the Parliament, where two-third majority is required.

If based on the number (of support) needed, a vote of no confidence is easier (to change the government) By having a fixed term parliament, it can more or less stabilise the country. Several democratic countries such as the United Kingdom and United States of America have practiced such a system to ensure a stable government.

Even though I plan to change the rules in Parliament where a vote of no confidence can only be brought by the opposition leader, not the Prime Minister or the government, the issue of anti-party hopping needs to be thoroughly examined and strengthen the overall system in the country.