THE government’s reduced parliamentary majority has yielded a number of public benefits, such as more exciting (if not better) debates, and a greater attention to parliamentary attendance.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has ordered all 140 Barisan Nasional members into the House for the whole of the three-week sitting, which began today, in order to vote down any attempt by the Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) to table its controversial nocon! dence motion. The government has also been worn down by PKR adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, who has been putting shots across the BN’s bow by promising mass defections to the opposition in Sabah – and the debate has naturally turned to the ethics of crossing the “oor. In this vein, various demands have been made for “anti-hopping” legislation preventing a member from leaving a party: Such an action, proposers of these laws say, would be an immoral act of betrayal that would lay parliamentary democracy open to corruption. Another Malay Mail columnist (in his blog malikimtiaz. blogspot.com) has put up an eloquent opposition to these views from constitutional and legal perspectives, but the antihopping argument remains an attractive one in view of Anwar’s threats and the new SAPP action. The issue also brings to light a wide divergence in our expectations of parties and individual politicians. As voters, do we vote according to our party preferences (and thus disregard the individual candidate) or do we vote for whichever candidate we believe will do the greatest good for our constituencies, regardless of his or her party? That we even have to ask the question points to a de!ciency – in our minds at least – with one or the other, but the answer is obvious: Both the stability of our government and the hopes of the opposition have long depended completely on strength of numbers in the House, and party interests therefore override individual beliefs in almost all areas of political engagement. This in turn implies in- “exible party discipline – on both sides of the divide – that leaves no room for votes of conscience necessary to a mature democracy. At our sister Parliament in Westminster, MPs routinely cross the “oor either voluntarily (where they literally have to do so in order to vote against their party on a speci!c issue, hence the term) or else they are booted off the bench by their colleagues for misconduct. Sir Winston Churchill himself crossed the “oor in 1904 to join the Liberals after disagreeing with the Conservatives (then in government) over military expenditure and free trade issues. He then rejoined the Tories in 1924, saying: “Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain ingenuity to re-rat.” Elsewhere in the Commonwealth, Australian Senator Reg Wright holds the parliamentary record for crossing the “oor 150 times in his 28-year career to vote against his own Liberal Party – and yet he remained an unshakably principled battleaxe whose loyalty was rewarded with a ministership and a knighthood in retirement. In these countries, speci! c issues and individual principles matter a great deal more to the electorate than blind party loyalty: To vote against one’s party on this basis is therefore deemed a matter of honour, rather than a betrayal. In our case, however, and at our present state of political development where so much can depend on one’s ability to “purchase” the loyalty of an opponent – through power, in”uence, or perhaps even cash – the idea of voting according to one’s conscience must for now remain a dream. Anti-hopping laws could well kill that dream, and however attractive they might be, they can never be more than a short-term solution. U-En Ng graduated in mediaeval languages and is a journalist. He is parliamentary sketchwriter for the Malay Mail.

Source: Malay Mail – June 23, 2008