Without doubt, there are individuals and groups which oppose Pakatan Rakyat’s idea of forming the federal government via defection. These groups rationalize their opposition by stating the voters elected the current government into power and not the current opposition. That rationale could be deconstructed further: voters’ main factor in voting a candidate into office is his political association and not the political belief or the characteristics of the candidate himself.
Given this, I wonder how the groups view SAPP’s defection from Barisan Nasional. Is it as immoral as Pakatan Rakyat’s idea?
I see no difference between SAPP’s action and Pakatan Rakyat’s proposal. Both violate the rationale of the individuals and groups which oppose formation of government via defection. I therefore expect the individuals and groups to oppose SAPP’s decision to quit Barisan Nasional and still retain the seats which SAPP won on March 8.
I personally do not buy the idea because the fact remains that in the system we live in, we vote individuals into office, not political parties. As a result, there is nothing undemocratic about forming a government via defection. Besides, willing defection is about freedom of association.
10 replies on “[1780] Of is the defection by SAPP immoral?”
“In any case, all this demonstrates how voting according to party is an inferior method compared to voting according to individuals.”
Nah, I disagree. I feel party-based voting blocks in parliament gives stability and coherence to policy directions. Individual MPs with vastly differing voting patterns makes for a very impractical legislative process.
“Regardless, I don’t think you are being consistent about SAPP and Pakatan’s proposal. You said it’s immoral but are okay with Pakatan “rebooting†the system?”
I ended my last comment with the only conclusion which logically flowed from an intellectual exercise which I indulged in. In there, I was trying not to deviate from a purely logical line of reasoning based on how voters vote for parties and not individuals.
However, I’m a pragmatic person, and I understand that pure strand of reasoning is faulty in the present reality. Malaysian elections are not fair contests. All the political and public institutions, right down to the supposedly impartial EC, are pro-BN.
Thus, I’m no purist or straight-laced democrat who forces myself to adhere to the so-called democratic rules of the game, when the other side clearly does not. Is what I’m advocating really a ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ situation? And remember I only advocated a temporary ‘reboot’, I do not agree with PR then ruling for the next 4 years through those defections. I demand an immediate snap elections after whirlwind reforms to level the playing ground, for me to acknowledge the legitimacy of a PR government.
Dear Anon,
Indeed!
Dear sigma,
I am not the one restricting the meaning of the whole thing. It is you instead. The conclusion of my rationale leads to freedom of association. Your conclusion restricts freedom. In fact, your whole argument is restricted to the idea of party politics.
My “anal reliance” in the spirit of the system. The fact there there is no law legislating it (and the fact such freedom is guaranteed in the Constitution in its original form and even in the current diluted form) proves that individual MPs are free to vote as they wish.
If the MPs choose to vote according to party line, it is because they choose to do so, not because they are forced, unlike what you wrote.
In any case, all this demonstrates how voting according to party is an inferior method compared to voting according to individuals.
Regardless, I don’t think you are being consistent about SAPP and Pakatan’s proposal. You said it’s immoral but are okay with Pakatan “rebooting” the system?
Sounds too much of a discretionary decision which lacks consistency. Furthermore, the reasoning for support it despite seeing it immoral is a case of two wrongs make a right, from your point of view of course. I don’t see how a person can talk about morality while supporting the supposedly immoral act at the same time.
Dear earthinc,
I felt that in my last paragraph, I have indeed answered the point which you have put to discussion:
“My view on this is that the individuals we elected are merely the appendages or representatives of their respective parties. For example, if I elect an UMNO MP who is a good, nice, hardworking chap, and then I ask him, as my elected representative, to deracialise the NEP, do you think he would be able to? No, because ultimately he is beholden to his party’s policies and ideology.”
This is definitely a ‘what’, and not a ‘why’. You seem to be restricted by the technicality of the definition of positive statements. Sure, we elect ‘people’ to parliament. I know what you are trying to prove, ie that since we elect individuals to parliament, thus defections are ok because our elected individuals are still in parliament, representing the voters who voted for them.
However, this argument is disingenuous and conveniently ignores the characteristics of Malaysian politics (or any other Westminster parliamentary democracy which places heavy emphasis on party loyalties for that matter). Those ‘individual MPs’ in parliament seldom get to vote on legislation based on their personal stances. Instead, they vote according to their respective party’s policy lines. So taking this into account, I fail to see where the ‘individual’ aspect of Malaysian MPs come into play here.
Malaysian MPs do not have the freedom to vote based on their own convictions and beliefs. Therefore, in reality, we are voting, yes, individuals, BUT individuals who represent the will of parties in terms of policies (since that is the primary purpose of MPs: they’re lawmakers), and not independent, free, individual MPs are can legislate as they will.
Taking away any anal reliance on the technical definitions of things, we are in reality electing ‘parties’ to legislate laws for us in parliament. And that’s a ‘what’, not a ‘why’.
And hence based on this, SAPP’s elected representatives quitting BN AFTER the elections must be viewed as immoral.
The fairest thing would be to hold a by-election i.m.o.
But do we REALLY want democracy to reflect the wishes of the people?
Heh.
Again, you answer “why do a voter elect a particular person into office”, not “what a voter elect into office?”
You are referring to normative statement. You write about factors which causes a voter to choose one person over the other. You refer to what factor causes a person to get into office.
I am referring to positive statement. I refer to what get elected into office?
Simple demonstration: Who votes in the parliament? Individual or party?
Who physically sits in the in the Parliament? Individual or party?
From the system point of view, it is the individual in all cases.
In any case, this discussion is running away from the topic: is SAPP’s defection immoral?
I don’t see the point you’re trying to make. My comment was referring to ‘what are you electing’ as well.
In simplest term:
One elects a BN MP because one likes the status quo, including the NEP, economic performance, race relations management, etc.
One elects a PR MP because one does not like the status quo.
Defections of BN MPs to PR robs the BN voters of the choice they made in the last election.
The above is basically the summary of what I said in my previous comment.
“Whatever factor we based our decision on, we elect an individual, not a party.
This is not my opinion but rather, it is a fact.”
Can you please elaborate on this comment of yours?
My view on this is that the individuals we elected are merely the appendages or representatives of their respective parties. For example, if I elect an UMNO MP who is a good, nice, hardworking chap, and then I ask him, as my elected representative, to deracialise the NEP, do you think he would be able to? No, because ultimately he is beholden to his party’s policies and ideology.
So I don’t see how your statement on us actually electing individuals and not parties is actually applicable in real life.
Dear Sigma,
It is important to differentiate between “why do you elect a person” and “what are you electing”. I am referring to the latter question while you are addressing the first.
In the current Malaysian system, it doesn’t matter whether you or I voted a person due to his personality, his political belief or political affiliation. Whatever factor we based our decision on, we elect an individual, not a party.
This is not my opinion but rather, it is a fact.
“I personally do not buy the idea because the fact remains that in the system we live in, we vote individuals into office, not political parties.”
That’s really your view on this?
I personally take a different path. I’ve always placed more emphasis on party affiliations compared to an individual’s own characteristics. The reason is simple: I view an individual MP’s choice of political party/coalition to be an extension of his own personal convictions and ideology. For example, if one passionately believes in a ‘Malaysian Malaysia’ ideology, then why join UMNO/MCA/MIC?
The second reason is a practical one. It is too difficult to ascertain a candidate’s personal attributes and abilities, especially if that candidate is a first-timer. So I fall back on his/her party when it’s time for me to vote.
I guess this logically makes me, in principle, oppose to governments which are formed via defections. I’ve actually rationalised a little on this issue on my blog. Basically, I can tolerate a government through defections at this juncture because I do not deem elections in Malaysia to be fair, and therefore BN’s claim to legitimacy is also not as strong as it could be. Usual suspects which caused me to say this include using the govt machinery for party purposes, a pro-BN media, and the array of repressive laws.
Therefore, I am in agreement with the idea of first seizing govt via defections as a form of ‘system rebooting’, then initiating massive reforms on all the aforementioned weaknesses of the present political system in a short space of time, and then calling for an early election to gain legitimate claim to government via the people’s choice.
Is it really unorthodox? Besides, does the system forbid it?
I don’t deny that people voted party but unfortunately for them, they elected individuals, not party. The system uses individuals as a basis, not party.
Individuals are voted according to their political affiliation – I’m not convinced either that Malaysians vote for individuals, instead of political parties. I disagree with you, and I see defections a lacking respect for voters – but then if the other party departs from the rule-book does this justify the use of ‘unorthodox tactics’?
But I don’t really care either way.