In the wake of Keshvinder Singh’s annoucement that he has quit DAP and now considers himself a BN-friendly independent, Karpal Singh has renewed his call for the enactment of anti-hopping legislation.
Karpal said the trend now was for a politician to quit the party but choose to remain as an elected representative.
“Ethically, they should also quit the post as they were voted on a political affiliation of either Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat.
“Keshwinder Singh must now do the honourable thing and vacate his assemblyman’s post,” he said.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/6/16/nation/6480521&sec=nation
To be fair to the DAP chairman, that has consistently been his position, even during the time when Anwar was at the center of claims that enough BN MPs were ready to force through a change of administration at the federal level by crossing over to PR.
I had written an article at that time arguing for a system where an MP is first and foremost elected on his or her own merit and therefore allowed to exercise conscience freely.
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.
http://www.themicahmandate.org/2008/09/response-to-sept-16-and-the-morality-of-party-hopping/
In the wake of the events in Perak and the subsequent legal battles, this recent change in allegiance by Keshwinder Singh and most recently the issues surrounding Tian Chua’s status as MP, I thought I would revisit the issue and share some thoughts.
In past elections I had voted for Dr Tan Kee Kwong even though he was contesting on a BN ticket. This was because I believed and hoped that as the son of Dr Tan Chee Khoon he would continue his father’s legacy and build a reputation for integrity. I could accept his choice of platform for his political career, knowing that change and improvement require people of integrity both within and without the party in power. If he had, during his term as a BN MP, changed his allegiance and switched over to PR, I would have had few issues. It would seem to me then that he had found it impossible to be the MP he wants to be in that party. If as a PR MP he switches back to BN, I would examine his reasons carefully, wanting first and foremost to satisfy myself that he remains the MP that I wish for.
In other words, I wish to elect an MP first and foremost. Not a political party. As I wrote in that article, if in electing an MP we are actually electing the party he stands for, “we might as well dispense with members of parliament and just vote for parties.”
I believe that an anti-hopping law goes against the notion of an MP, against the idea that the Parliament is a law-making body that acts as a counter-balance against the executive and judiciary to ensure that the country is run with the welfare of the people and nation in mind. Similarly I believe that the widespread practice of forcing an MP to vote along party lines is wrong, as then an MP is not held accountable for his voting decisions.
Secondly, I believe that an anti-hopping law will perpetuate the problem of poor quality MPs, because they can hide behind the reputation of the party backing them. And if political parties are assured that elected MPs cannot change their allegiance, they have less incentive to do the hard work of identifying good potential leaders with integrity.
I understand the issues that underly the push for anti-hopping legislation. But I think that the answer to those issues is better candidates.
We are now told that DAP candidates in Perak were required to sign a contract that they will have to resign from their seats and pay RM5 million if they decide to defect. This tells me that they have chosen candidates that they do not have complete confidence in, especially in the area of integrity. In doing so they have done a great disfavour to those who support their cause. If I believe that an external contract that exacts monetary penalty is necessary to stop a candidate from defecting, then I have little faith in (or at least know little of) the person’s integrity. In business the contract is important. In the matter of the country’s future, surely I want people whom I am confident enough to require only a handshake.
Anwar Ibrahim at least apologised for the poor choices that PKR made, admitting that the problems of crossover primarily stems from his choice of candidates.
Saying he is taking responsibility for the bad calls, a solemn-looking Anwar told a stunned crowd of over 1,000: “I’m sorry… It’s my fault.”
“Why do I say sorry… It’s my fault that certain candidates that I had chosen for the general elections in 2008 were not strong,” the Parliamentary Opposition leader and Permatang Pauh MP said at the State PKR Chinese New Year open house at the Rifle Range flats here today.
“From now on, I will make sure that for someone to qualify as a candidate, that person must first be tested, and confirmed fit and capable,” he said.
http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=43456
This is what I want to hear and see.
The problems in Perak stem from the presence of poor candidates who won on a PR ticket. I would have few problems with the crossovers if they were done for good reasons. But changing allegiance in in their first year as ADUN convinces me that the candidates themselves lack integrity. And of course, the disregard of proper procedures – taking a vote of confidence – made matters worse. But it would not cause me to enact laws where elected leaders are not allowed to exercise their conscience and mind freely.
If we believe in the democratic system, and I do, then we must do what we can to make the system work. If there is a dearth of quality leaders then we must do what we can to groom future leaders. For too long politics in Malaysia has resembled a game politicians play. And PR politicians have been playing the game too. To me APCO, Israeli-infiltrated police, claims and counter-claims of potential crossovers, and now this decision to sue Keshvinder and Hee for breach of contract – they seem to me political games by PR. While I understand that the Malaysian public need some titillation now and again, I would like to see PR MPs rise above these games and get into the serious business of steering the national dialogue to substantive issues.
I love Elizabeth Wong’s response to Zahrain’s muckraking:
“While Zahrain and his team were wallowing in gutter politics yesterday, I was proposing in the Selangor state exco meeting to address a critical national issue, of outstanding students needing our help to further their education,” she said.
I would love to see Anwar use his oratorial skills to convince especially the rural electorate that the NEP has benefitted a chosen few, and that corruption robs them of the progress that they deserve. Perhaps these speeches can then be distributed widely in DVDs. I would love to see PR MPs respond to the 10MP and share what they think will work for the future of the nation. I would love to see PR MPs reflecting “Malaysia for Malaysians” in their speeches and actions. I would love to see them countering Mahathir’s incessant reinforcement of the seige mentality among the Malays and his consistent framing of issues along racial lines, and help especially the Malays to get in touch with their core values and principles. Rather than hammering Mahathir’s point of view, they can share their own point of view and experience, thus broadening the debate.
These are matters that cannot be communicated effectively by a party. Party manifestos are not particularly inspiring literature. They can only be effective coming as the convictions of persons that we have come to know and respect. PR needs to find these people and bring them onto the political scene, hopefully not just weeks before an election.
The Micah Mandate is a Christian-based public interest advocacy ministry that seeks a transformation of our nation through justice, mercy and humility.
