Categorised | Columns

Changing the government

Changing the government
(© Timur Druzhynin / 123rf)

SO, it did not happen on 16 Sept. But that does not alter the conclusion: regime change is only a question of when and how, and not whether it will happen.

After the ISA arrests of blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin, journalist Tan Hoon Cheng and parliamentarian Teresa Kok — the Barisan Nasional (BN)’s biggest political mistake since 8 March — the survival of the present administration of Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has become so untenable that increasing numbers in civil society and the media are taking pains to justify the crossovers.

Many of their justifications dismiss objections to the crossovers as merely based on morality and ethics — namely, the question of whether the ends justify the means. The crossover justifications are convincing for many because, if the Pakatan Rakyat is unethical, there is clearly a shorter supply of principles on the BN’s side.

The real question we need to deal with, however, is between intentions and consequences. We are facing a trade-off between democratic transition and democratic consolidation.

Unfortunately, those who have advocated for a quick transition from the authoritarian regime to the democratic opposition rarely discuss how we can make sure that “democracy becomes the only game in town.”

Even the 12 Sept ISA arrests merely suggest that the cost of a later transition may have increased, but without a realistic assessment of the price we may pay in delayed consolidation. We cannot judge if a hasty transition is the best thing to do.

This is a pure cost-benefit analysis, not an abstract philosophical debate on morality.

The perils of crossovers, part one:
Reduced competition

Depending on its type, mass crossovers may reduce competitive politics, regardless of the degree of democratisation. The underlying democratic ideal of multi-party elections is for the better candidates from all parties to defeat their opponents who are deemed less desirable.

In this sense, a crossover that results from the split of a dominant party to form a splinter group — like the formation of the Semangat 46 parliamentary caucus in 1988 — is good.

In contrast, crossovers intended for the main antagonists to be in the same camp actually eliminate choices for the electorate, much like what business mergers do for consumers.

Ironically, even if an en-bloc East Malaysian crossover can democratise Malaysia, it is likely to halt democratisation in these two “one-party” states. Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim will have to promise the East Malaysian defectors their candidature in the next elections, leaving local leaders from Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and the DAP with no chance to unseat them.

This explains why PKR is keen to have the defectors join as individuals rather than as representatives of component parties, and the DAP has been seemingly lukewarm to the idea of crossovers.

Changing the government
(© Kae Horng Mau / 123rf)
Some argue that Anwar can be very choosy and picks only the good apples, leaving the rotten ones behind. This is a naive expectation as he will only make new enemies by excluding the rotten.

More substantially, if Anwar poaches only the good guys, how would we expect an opposition consisting of all corrupt politicians to behave?

In this sense, the “get-only-the-good-ones” argument does not change the dilemma: damned if you don’t, and damned even if you do.

The perils of crossovers, part two:
Destabilising precedence

Crossovers in a context of ongoing democratisation set a negative precedent in government formation. Some argue that there is a need for “extreme measures in extreme times”, but do we want to see parliamentarians frequently changing their party affiliations after the polls?

Changing the government
Reformasi in Indonesia, 1998 (© David Dare Parker, source:
The Philippines had its democratic transition 22 years ago, but democracy has not been consolidated since. Every now and then, an elected — and not necessarily democratic — government faces the threat of being brought down by people power and military coups.

In contrast, thanks to the ascendance of four presidents (BJ Habibie, Abdurrahman Wahid, Megawati Sukarnoputri and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono) through constitutional means despite the initial ouster of General Suharto by mass protests 10 years ago, Indonesian democracy is arguably consolidated.

Like it or not, a new government formed through controversial crossovers is vulnerable to the pressures of the unelected institutions: the monarchy, the military, the police and the civil service.

Can a new government that needs to make substantial concessions to “king-makers” or “king-backers” to ensure its survival be truly reformist?

Changing the government
A new government formed through crossovers is vulnerable to the pressures of unelected institutions such as the police
A hasty overthrow of the Abdullah government through statutory declarations of non-confidence might immediately send the country into a constitutional crisis. In 1966, the government of Tunku Abdul Rahman orchestrated a revolt of Sarawak lawmakers against the outspoken Iban chief minister, Datuk Stephen Kalong Ningkan. With a top-secret letter of no-confidence issued by 21 out of 42 legislators, the state governor requested Ningkan to resign.

Ningkan resisted because there was not a vote of no-confidence in the state legislative assembly. He was sacked but eventually reinstated by the Borneo High Court, which saw the necessity of a formal vote of no confidence.

In his judgement, Harley A-G OCJ ruled that the governor can only exercise his power to dismiss the chief minister when both these conditions are satisfied: “(a) the chief minister has lost the confidence of the House, and (b) the chief minister has refused to resign and failed to advise a dissolution.”

As our state political system is very much modelled on the federal one, is the judgement on Ningkan not binding on the federal government?

If Abdullah has lost parliamentary support but rejects statutory declarations just as Ningkan did the top-secret letter, can the Yang di-Pertuan Agong appoint another prime minister? Can we afford to have two PMs?

The simple way out is clearly a fresh election.

The perils of crossovers, part three:
The bitter loser

The third implication of regime change through crossovers is the emergence of a bitter loser. Can Umno stomach the loss of power without being given a chance to put up a fight?

Changing the government
A fresh election will prevent a precedent of governments formed through
party-hopping, but there is also the need for electoral reform

For some, it is important to vacate the BN government before holding fresh elections in order to implement political reforms such as the abolition of the ISA, and, most importantly, electoral reform.

Many worry that the Pakatan Rakyat will suffer another near-miss if the electoral process is not overhauled. PKR lawmaker Sivarasa Rasiah has proposed a shelf life of six months for the new government before fresh elections are called.

While the concern about electoral fraud is real, can Umno accept a Pakatan Rakyat caretaker government (which, by definition, should not carry out major policy changes)? After mistreating the opposition for so many years, can Umno trust the Pakatan Rakyat to treat them fairly?

Without Umno’s acceptance, we may not even have a smooth transition, let alone consolidation of democracy.

What’s the way out?

Our position is now difficult due to the following four conditions:

(a) the current government is increasingly untenable;

(b) a parliamentary no-confidence vote may not be possible as the speaker may not allow it, and it can only happen at the earliest in late October if the 2009 budget is defeated;

(c) the Pakatan Rakyat will probably resist fresh polls until the electoral process is reformed; and

(d) Umno is likely to reject a Pakatan Rakyat-led caretaker government.

What shall we do?

The only viable solution seems to be a caretaker government acceptable to both sides of the divide until the next election is called. Its task in political reform is to ensure two things: (a) that the electoral process is free and fair to deliver victory to the deserving winner (this point is essential for the Pakatan Rakyat); and (b) that the loser will not be suppressed, discriminated against or marginalised (this point essential for Umno/BN, which may refuse to admit defeat otherwise).

Changing the government
Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, founder of the Semangat 46 splinter party in 1988, and best choice for caretaker prime minister (Source:
The caretaker prime minister ideally should not be selected from the core leaders of either side. As our constitution requires the prime minister to be a member of the lower house, respectable elders like Tun Musa Hitam are ruled out. The next best choice is perhaps Tan Sri Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah.

Is this what Anwar and his colleagues plan to discuss with Abdullah? We don’t know, but we should. A new Malaysia should not be one whose fate is dictated by politicians behind closed doors.

There is more than one way to change the government. The 16 Sept deadline has already passed. It’s time we expand our imagination beyond this date. End of Article

A political scientist by training and a journalism lecturer by trade, Wong Chin Huat uses the Federal Constitution as his “bible” to fend off the increasingly intolerable evil called “state”.

Post to Twitter Post to Google Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to StumbleUpon

6 Responses to “Changing the government”

  1. disappointed says:

    “A new Malaysia should not be one whose fate is dictated by politicians behind closed doors.”

    Aren’t they ‘wakil rakyat’ – people elected to serve the rakyat to the best of their abilities instead of people like the writer who thinks he can just barge in – representing who by the way? Or is the writer feeling left out because Pakatan is consulting more senior political scientists and analysts? But it is clear that he has no clue what is going on in Pakatan as well as the thoughts running in the rakyat’s head.

    Political analysts are a dime a dozen. Next time, the writer should get out of his comfort zone and do something meaningful, like run for elections.

  2. Jess says:

    Dear Disappointed,

    Since you say the writer has no clue what is going on in Pakatan Rakyat (and he wouldn’t be the only one, no thanks to the closely held cards by Anwar and gang), it would appear that you do. So, would you please, please enlighten us?

    And just because Wong chose not to write about “what’s running in the rakyat’s heads”, it doesn’t mean he has no clue what’s going on lah. Why can’t you appreciate that he has a different take and wants to share it with those who want to know what the heck could be happening? Since no forthright answers are coming from the “next PM of Malaysia”.

    I see increasing signs of intolerance for plurality of opinions among Pakatan supporters. Now, THAT’S disappointing.

    And don’t flame me for challenging you to make an intelligent argument instead of an ad hominem lah. My jalur gemilang’s up on my car already since 16 Sept, OK?

    Speaking of which, how come I see only satu dua bendera terpasang di kereta each time I’m on the road? Where are the 1 million flags Anwar said they distributed – as an indication of “what’s running in the rakyat’s heads”?

    Disappointed too.

  3. Aput says:

    I think that calling an election after a vote of no confidence will be the proper way to go. Firstly, this will make the walkover quite clear.

    Secondly, it will renew the ruling mandate or provide a mandate for a change in power.

    It will also show whether the votes are for the party or the candidate. If “the walkovers” still win the seats, then it’s obvious that people don’t give a damn about Anwar in the first place.

    I think politics in Malaysia is getting more exciting, and as a wannabe pundit, it has never been better.

  4. Toh says:

    “The caretaker prime minister ideally should not be selected from the core leaders of either side. As our constitution requires the prime minister to be a member of the lower house, respectable elders like Tun Musa Hitam are ruled out. The next best choice is perhaps Tan Sri Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah.”

    I think the writer is a bit “crazy” for suggesting this candidate. I respect his stand or position to oppose the crossovers, but please don’t suggest nonsense to justify your stand. Razaleigh is from Umno, a very Malay-ultra leader. He has yet to show his stand on ISA arrest. And yet you suggest him?

  5. prussiablue says:

    Suppose in a far away land, someone beats his wife and abuses his children but there is no law that stipulates what he is doing is wrong. Does this mean what he did is right? Should we as neighbours watch him continue to dish out this devilish treatment to his family and refrain from intervening since it might create more questions on precedent and when is the point of time to intervene.

    Stop with all this high-handed legality talk. The author should realize that this country is sick. The government is openly abusing our nation’s wealth for their convenience and greed. Anwar may not be the best hope but it must be acknowledged he is now the nation’s only hope; wait for another tainted election, and we may not get the ‘true results’, and seriously four years is too long for this country.

    The author may be trying to impress us with his in-depth analysis. Credit should be granted when it is due and from an academic point of view, he does possess some merit. But sir, we the rakyat are the true victims of everything that is played out by this incompetent government. Put it this way, we continue with this government, nothing changes. We support the crossovers and the creation of a new government, something may change. Even a risk-averse person should know which path he should take.

    In sum, take off your political analysis hat and open yourself to the rakyat’s plight!

  6. Laura1318 says:

    When any part of your body is gangrenous, you have to cut it off. It does not matter which method you use. That part must be hived off , the sooner the better before the poison spreads throughout your body.

    It is not about morality but about doing what needs to be done to cure the ills affecting our society and country at large.

    “We have, in fact, two kinds of morality side by side; one which we preach but do not practice, and another which we practice but seldom preach.”
    -Bertrand Russell-

Most Read (Past 3 Months)

Most Comments (Past 3 Months)

  • None found




  • The Nut Graph


Switch to our mobile site