Party and government

To have a sustainable democracy, Malaysians must first appreciate the difference between the political parties in power and the government of the day that these parties establish. Unfortunately, many people are not even aware of the difference or its significance. Some who are aware do not care one bit.

When an UMNO Information Chief, who is also a Deputy Minister, proudly declared that the Government and UMNO were one and the same, many Malaysians poured scorn on him. Everyone thought it was unbecoming and arrogant of him to assume that the Federal Government was synonymous with his party.

But to be fair, leaders of the Pakatan Rakyat have also treated the Selangor state government and Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim like their private property—they behave as if they are free to do as they like, all in the name of democracy. They make no distinction between Khalid as a party man and Khalid as the MB of the state government.

As a party member, Khalid can be disciplined and sacked, but as a Menteri Besar and head of the state government he can only be removed in a specific way, i.e. through a vote of no confidence in the State Assembly. The State Executive Councillors can also be disciplined and sacked as party members, but they too can only be removed from their state positions by the MB, with the consent of the Sultan. Pakatan’s leaders have blatantly flouted this established Westminster rule in Selangor, ironically following the same tactic that was used against them in Perak in 2008.

In Perak the act of removing the MB was carried out by the opposing political party while Khalid is being disposed of by his own party, but this makes no difference. In both instances, the incumbent MB and his state government was removed.

In Perak, the Barisan Nasional was able to persuade the late Sultan of Perak that they had the majority of members in the State Assembly supporting their nominee as MB without needing to take a vote in the Assembly. For that reason, the BN argued, the incumbent MB had to step down. There was no need for a vote of no confidence and the Court ruled in favour of the BN on this point.

Similarly, Khalid’s opponents hope to persuade the Sultan of Selangor that he no longer has the majority support of the Pakatan, so he and his Exco have to go. They do not see the need for a debate or an explanation in the State Assembly to help the people of Selangor understand the real reasons for their actions. Pakatan’s voters are just expected to follow. The fact that an elected government is about to be changed means little to these leaders.

The Perak decision and the Selangor plan are not only morally repugnant and wrong—they are a distortion of the laws of the country and an abuse of the democratic process. It’s a complete negation of the mandate of the people. To change an elected government is a serious business, even if it is being done by the majority party in power.

To have a majority does not mean you can do what you like to the government of the day. There is a world of difference between “party” and “government”, and for good reason. The Chief Minister or MB has a broader mandate and the support of the people. This stands separate from and far beyond the influence of his political party, or coalition of parties that nominated him. To remove him, you must be prepared to seek a fresh mandate from the voters. That’s the basic principle of democracy.

That’s why many Constitutional experts have argued that a vote of no confidence against an MB is the best deterrent for any possible abuse. When you go for a vote in the Assembly, you are taking a major risk. If the vote is carried then the MB who has lost the vote is entitled to ask the Ruler to call for a fresh mandate, and His Highness would be expected to dissolve the Assembly so elections can be called.

The consequence of removing a sitting MB is therefore far reaching , and that’s why it’s not done just because you want your wife to take the hot seat or you happen not to like the incumbent, for whatever reason.

Of course, those in favour of removing Khalid as MB gleefully point to the Perak precedent as the legal basis of their actions. The very episode which they rightfully condemned as a black day for democracy has now become their guiding star. That’s Malaysian politics for you.

I will not be surprised that if Pakatan leader Datuk Sri Anwar Ibrahm is acquitted by the Federal Court some months down the road (an unlikely event but you never know), the Pakatan will have another round of “internal disputes”. Someone will say it’s unIslamic to have a woman as MB so they must now put Anwar as head of the state government. Selangor’s game of political musical chairs will keep going, depending on the circumstance and mood of the Pakatan’s supreme leader. -zaid.my