Bob Teoh’s article focuses on the historical precedences of party-hopping with the conclusion that the politicians who raise the question of morality should not do so as their parties have a history of party-hopping. However as the date approaches, the internet is hosting a furious discussion on the issue of morality. I would like to add my 2 sen to this discussion.

The basic argument is that members of parliament are voted in according to the political party they represent. In other words, voters were voting on which political party they want to form the government. To effect a change of government by a change of the political alignment of members of parliament is therefore an effort to thwart the will of the people.

Firstly, I would like to point out that the government formed out of the March 8 elections is by a person deemed by the Agong to command the support of the majority of the members of parliament. In other words, while people may think they are electing a government, they are actually electing a representative. It is the representative who decides who he will support to form the government. And that person forms the executive government. While the people may elect the representative based on the platform he stands on, the law allows that reprensentative to change his allegiance.

Moreover, the person who forms the govenment may change. For example Badawi’s deal with Najib to hand over power in 2010. You may say that the point is that the political party remains BN and that is the mandate given by the people. But the mechanics is such that what you are doing is putting a political party in power and then allowing that party to decide who forms the government. No different from saying that you are actually electing a representative and then allowing that representative to exercise his power.

Secondly, constituencies are arbitrarily drawn. There are no hard and fast rules as to where a constituency should begin or end. And obviously, constituencies are drawn to favour the ruling party. Then too there is the law that says that Sabah and Sarawak should have no less than 25% of the total members of parliament. In other words, commanding the allegiance of the majority of members of parliament does not necessarily translate into commanding the allegiance of the majority of the population.

Taken as a whole, I would like to put forward my conclusion that while the present government is legal, it is not necessarily reflective of the will of the people as a whole. A new government, formed by a re-alignment of allegiances, will also be legal, and not necessarily reflective of the will of the people as a whole. The issue of legitimacy is a legal issue, not a moral one. A constituency can only determine the person who will represent them in parliament. It cannot determine who forms the government.

The second issue is whether a member of parliament is morally wrong to change the platform he stood on during the elections. It is legal, but is it morally right? In the present system, I have to say no, it is wrong. This is because the present system is such that the MP of a political party can be forced to vote along party lines, regardless of his conscience. This means that the present system is such that when we vote for an MP, we are actually voting for the party, rather than the person. And so when the person change parties, it nullifies the votes the person received.

I do not think that this is a good system. Surely a lofty position like a member of parliament should be defined in such a way that the experience, intelligence and moral strength of the person should be allowed to influence the process of law-making. As someone said, in the present system, we might as well dispense with members of parliament and just vote for parties.

The fact of the matter is that the responsibilities placed on the shoulders of members of parliament—to shape the direction of the country through laws, to examine and contribute to the plans of the executive for the running of the country, and to act as a counterweight against the executive and the judiciary in order to ensure that the interests of the people are never sidelined—these responsibilities are so heavy and important that we should want our MPs to be free to exercise their mind. And we should be voting for the person, rather than the party.

So in the present system, how can an MP respond when his conscience tells him to go against his party? Legally, he is free to do as he deems right. Morally (in terms of the mandate he is given by his constituents) he has very limited options. If he resigns and goes back to his constituency for a new mandate, he is prevented by law from contesting for 5 years. A private referendum, as suggested by some, is impractical. There is not much else he can do. That is the problem with the present system.

Taken as a whole, I favour a system where an MP is free to exercise his mind for the good of his constituents and country. Better still when the MP has the platform to argue and present his position to his constituents so that there is a better dialogue, participation and involvement of the people. And if the constituents disagree, they can remove him come the next elections. But in the present context, yes, I think there is a moral issue.

Personally, I would welcome a change in government if it happens. I remember Raja Nazrin’s speech where he outlined his thinking on nation-building. And I was flooded with deep emotions as I read his affirmation that Malaysia belongs to all Malaysians equally, and all have an equal right and responsibility to take ownership of their country and its future. Yet when I thought it over, I realized that he was not saying anything more than what is my right as a citizen. That was when I realized how much of a second-class citizen I have felt under the present government. Coupled with the racial perspectives that emanate from those in government, the arrogance in claiming that they can pass any law they wish, and the endemic corruption that is now slowly being exposed, I am ready for change.

Would I take the same stance if the change is the result of PAS joining UMNO to form the new government? Let me be honest by saying that I would not welcome that government because it will exacerbate the racial divide. But I will have to accept it as it is legal.

In the real world, nothing is perfect. The point I want to make is that if the change in government happens, it is legal. For many of us, that is as good as it gets.

Did you like this? If so, please bookmark it,

about it, and subscribe to the blog RSS feed.