freedom of association – the _

[1987] Of my support for election does not negate my belief in freedom of association

Why election in Perak? Why do I support dissolving the state assembly in light that I see no wrong in a person exercising his or her freedom of association? Is it not political defection that caused the whole fiasco in Perak?

Am I being inconsistent?

No. I hold consistency as a personal value and therefore, I can say with certainty that I am being consistent. Allow me to explain my position and demonstrate my consistency.

From my perspective, the issue in Perak has long stopped being about freedom of association. It is not about political defection of the three state assemblypersons from DAP and PKR that brought down the Pakatan Rakyat government in Perak. Therefore, point raised by Barisan Nasional — and more so by UMNO members as BN component parties begin to break rank on the matter — about BN having the majority in the state assembly is moot.

It is clear to me that there is a serious deadlock in the state assembly even after accounting for the 3 defectors who are now supposedly to be independent assemblypersons friendly to BN. The deadlock comes not from the composition of the legislative hall which practically favors BN but is caused instead by the fact that the Speaker and the de facto government — BN, that is — are terribly hostile against each other. It is this deadlock, not the defection per se, that convinces me to support dissolution of the assembly and inevitably election.

Speakers in Malaysia, be it at the federal or state level, have extensive powers that he is the dictator of the house. With a culture of neutrality that should be held by Speaker absent, the Speaker is able to frustrate the government and bring any government’s business to a halt. However disagreeable a Speaker’s action is, the fact is in the imperfect system that Perak and Malaysia adopt considers Speaker’s extensive power as legal.

Not only that, the Speaker can suspend anybody seemingly indiscriminately.

BN tried to remove the Speaker but the truth is that BN cannot hope to succeed if they want to remove the Speaker legally without dissolving the state assembly. What happened on May 7 was a series of constitutional violations where BN eventually usurped the power the Speaker. It was wrong.

The power of the Speaker needs to be addressed but it has to be addressed through amendment of laws, not through the illegal use of brute force as was done on May 7 by BN. This means I consider Sivakumar as the only lawful Speaker.

While BN’s action on May 7 compounds the problem from imperfect system to dishonorable disrespect for the Constitution, it is really irrelevant to my support for dissolution and election. While it does have a great impact on political reality — I think it does make the emotional case for election stronger — the trigger point for my support of election is, as I mentioned, the conflict between the Speaker and the de facto government, the BN government in Perak.

Yes, the de jure government is the Pakatan Rakyat government as highlighted by the High Court in its May 11 ruling but the de facto government is the BN government.

Furthermore, if the apex Court reaffirmed the High Court’s decision, Pakatan Rakyat may become a minority government. Theoretically, if the laws are observed, Pakatan Rakyat can remain a minority government until 2013 because the Speaker can ensure any vote of confidence to bring down the minority government is thrown out. To me, a minority government is unacceptable if there is another group in the same House which is able to form a majority government. It is undemocratic.

To solve the issue, dissolution is necessary.

Notice, the two points do not at all affect freedom of association.

[1896] Of their words on morality are as worthless as dirt

A theater nearby is closing late today. Business is brisk, tickets sold out and the hall is filled. The operator has an outstanding comedy to thank for. The audience may laugh but at the end of the day, there is one important lesson to take home: to UMNO and Parti Keadilan Rakyat as well as their supporters, political defection is a matter of convenience and not morality.

So much has been said about political defection ever since Anwar Ibrahim first shared his ambition with the public last year. The confidence exhibited by him and his supporters was extraordinary. It rallied his base and made those on the other side terribly apprehensive. The drama even went across the South China Sea to Taiwan in humorous fashion.

Those threatened by Anwar Ibrahim’s move questioned its morality. They accused that a government formed through defection is undemocratic and unethical. Never mind that freedom of association itself is a democratic right, political defection was forwarded as a maneuver that disrespects the mandate given by the people through the March 8 2008 general election.

BN, fearing defections might actually take place, cried for anti-hopping law. Yet, when Parti Bersatu Sabah suffered political defection much to the benefit of BN, the same demand for such law was not heard.

This is one simple sign that the morality of defection is not about conviction but rather, convenience.

Another sign is when Anwar Ibrahim and PKR itself suffered from political defection. Suddenly, political defection is bad word for PKR. Anwar Ibrahim went as far as saying ”BN is trying to form the state government by hook or by crook — more by crook”. He said that without even a hint of guilt. Just days earlier, he was full of praise for freedom of association after he successfully fished in an UMNO state representative into PKR.

UMNO of course suffers from contradiction too when it comes to words and actions. It is clear that UMNO is for anti-hopping law, except when they are the beneficiaries of a supposedly immoral act.

Amid chameleons lacking sincerity undeserving of trust, there are a few notable heroes. Among them are Karpal Singh, Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim and Nik Aziz Nik Mat. While their opposition to the idea of free association is disagreeable, at least they are honest as proven by the consistency. It is to these individuals that matters revolving around freedom of association are truly a question of morality.

These are the ones our society should give backing more frequently to and not some politicians who change their positions when it is convenient to do so, and too often at that. These are the ones that have real principles and take effort to live up to them even when they face challenging obstacles.

If freedom of association is ever immoral and an unethical idea, then the purposeful convenient inconsistency of positions is an even graver immorality. It is immoral and unethical because it shifts the goal post whereas a fair game demands for the post to be fixed. It is because of this that those that stick to their positions out of convictions are far better than fickle minded, opportunistic, unprincipled individuals.

For UMNO, PKR and their respective supporters that drabble themselves with the shameful paths of convenience, the next moral step to rectify their immoral act is clear: do away with the pretension of morality with regards to liberty. They need to be honest with their position about political defection: that they really do not care.

Any effort at honestly requires for both to cease assaulting the democratic right of a person to exercise his or her freedom of association. Equally important, both sides should realize that they have no moral authority at all to question such freedom anymore for their words are as worthless as dirt.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on February 8 2009.