The essence of a contract is the mutual assent of the parties to all its terms. There must be pleasure for the contracting parties to participate in the proposed project. Duress destroys the document. Simply put, if there is duress there cannot be a contract.

The question which arises in the context of the present pressure to sign the pledge is the true motivation of the BN administration to put forward this new requirement that any person on the public payroll must put pen to paper.

An objection arises that only one class of citizens is selected for the signing ceremony. Rubber smallholders e.g. are exempt. It is therefore a selective agreement specially applied to only some of the citizens, specifically civil servants.

It is important to note that those required to sign are already employed. The terms of the present employment contract have already been agreed to by both parties. It is still in existence. There is no suggestion the pledge amends or replaces the existing contract. Therefore the pledge cannot be construed as a new employment contract, replacing the old without collective bargaining by both parties.

Perhaps it is to be construed as an amendment to the existing contract. In that case there must be an option of accepting or rejecting the new terms. The original contract cannot be altered without the agreement of both the government and collectively the civil servants. The government wishes all the paragraphs of the pledge to be permanent and binding in perpetuity, both for present policies and any future policy they may put forward.

There is no quid pro quo. I.e., there is no incentive given by the government to the civil servants to sign this contract. It is to be a gratituitous gift of the fundamental right to think and act independently. Surely the government cannot be serious in thinking this acceptable.

If it cannot be construed as a contract that is legal under the law, then what is it? It appears to be an attempt to pressure the civil servants into abandoning their rights and responsibilities as citizens. Having once come to power, the present party wishes to be given carte blanche to alter the terms of its tenure without any worry of oversight from the voters.

This is clearly an illegal infringement on the constitutional right of every citizen to continuously evaluate the conduct of the elected representatives and officers. The citizen is empowered to consider whether any amendment to each and every law now in effect is desirable. It obviously extends also to the new pledge. The matter has not been examined for its constitutionality, and there has been no open debate as to its merits. The right to have such open debate on each and every change in the law is fundamental to a democracy.

Only a dictatorship would put such a requirement forward without debate, with the implied threat of breeching the employment contract now in force. There is thus duress that invalidates the entire procedure, and this duress is rightly resisted by the civil servants who are requested to sign. Those who have signed have a right to renounce.

No citizen should be forced to sign such a statement, as it clearly contravenes the intent of the Constitution. In the event the signing is forced, and no refusal is allowed, then the civil servants can seek legal redress to protect their careers. A blanket refusal to sign forces a debate on the merits of the proposal, and a discussion in depth of the desirability of depriving the citizens of their rights in perpetuity.

Such a discussion can have only one conclusion, that the government cannot remove the right of a citizen to approve or disapprove of government action. It destroys any opportunity to dissent, and disallows a minority view. History shows that often the minority view is found to be the better one, and therefore it is prudent to nurture it for this eventuality.

Good government must keep an avenue open for optimising performance. There must be provision in place for constant feedback and evaluation, thus benefitting by experience gained from trial and error. The present pledge guarantees faulty decisions will be cast in concrete. The lack of wisdom shown by the officers of the present government shows them fit for little more than highly paid morticians making plans for a windfall.

The civil servants form a class of knowledgeable and educated voters. This effort to eviscerate their role as observers and overseers of the ministers in the government is understandable, but must be seen as an attempt to usurp power and perpetuate objectionable policy. The pledge strikes at the core of informed and intelligent dissent. As such it is a detestable instrument of tyranny, typical of the undemocratic mentality presently enshrined in Putrajaya.