An interesting article on the function of MPs.
The morality of crossing over
William Leong Jee Keen | Sep 17, 08 8:12pm
The Bar Council, Harris Ibrahim and Sean Ang are reported in the
MCPXNew Straits Times on September 10 to have said that members of parliament crossing the floor to join another party is legal but immoral.
It is therefore necessary to draw the attention of the public to several fundamental principles with regard to the issue on the morality of MPs crossing the floor.
Crossing the floor to sit as a member of parliament in another political party is nothing new in parliamentary democracies. It has been described as the height of treachery. It has also been praised as the stuff which parliamentarian heroes are made of.
The great Sir Winston Churchill is perhaps the most famous parliamentarian to cross the floor and switch allegiance on more than one occasion.
There is no dispute that crossing the floor for money or personal gain is both immoral and a betrayal of the voters’ trust. However, when the MP crosses not for personal gain but in the interest and welfare of his constituents then he should be commended.
The argument that crossing is immoral is that the MP was elected on his erstwhile political party’s ticket and that is amounts to a fraud on his voters. This argument is founded on two assumptions. The first is that the MP’s seat belongs to the political party. The second is that the MP was voted in based on his party’s platform and policies.
The assumptions are wrong and the argument has failed to take into consideration several objectives and purposes of certain fundamental principles of a parliamentary constitutional system.
Upon a proper understanding of these fundamental principles, it will be seen that far from being immoral, the ability for MPs to cross the floor is not only moral but part of the democratic process.
The argument that the voters have elected the MP on the party’s ticket and that the seat belongs to the party and not the MP arises from a confusion over the nature of the electoral systems in use. There are two major electoral systems in the world’s democracies:
The first is the constituency-based electoral system. By this system, voters in each local area or constituency elect an individual candidate. The person who wins the majority of votes in each constituency becomes a member of parliament.
The party with the majority of MPs forms the government. In this system, the individual MP and not the party holds the seat. This means the MP can cross the floor and still keep his seat.
The second is the proportional representation system. By this system, the electorate in a large area, for example, a province or a country votes for political parties. The political party chooses the people who will become MPs. Each party is allocated a number of seats proportional to the number of votes it receives in the election. In this system, the seat belongs to the party and the MP who crosses the floor cannot keep his seat.
The electoral system used in Malaysia is the constituency-based system. Therefore, the argument that the MP has stolen his party’s seat when he crosses the floor is not supported upon a proper understanding of the constituency based electoral system.
The constituency based system provides for individuals and not political parties to be the candidates for election to the Dewan Rakyat. This is shown by independents, persons who do not belong to any political party, to contest.
The candidate is elected not only on the policies and political ideology but also his personal character and capability. The policies and manifesto of the individual candidate will substantially be similar with the policies of other candidates from his party but there will also be differences according to the specific needs of the constituency and the candidate’s own capabilities.
The party ticket is therefore a grouping of individual candidates professing to hold similar policies and ideology. However, the constituents are voting for the individual candidate based on his policies, his personal capabilities and personal commitment.
The party ticket argument also fails to give effect to the provisions of Articles 43(1) and 43(4) of the Federal Constitution. Article 43(1) provides that the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong is to appoint the prime minister who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Dewan Rakyat.
Article 43(4) provides that the prime minister is to tender the resignation of his cabinet if he ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Dewan Rakyat.
The effect of our electoral system and the operation of these two articles are that the constituents have given the power to the majority of the 222 members of parliament to decide who, from amongst them, is to be the prime minister.
The tenure of the 222 and their power is fixed. It continues until the next general election. The tenure of the prime minister, however, is not fixed and not immutable. It is subject to the prime minister continuing to enjoy the confidence of the majority of the 222 throughout the term of the Parliament.
William Leong Jee Keen | Sep 17, 08 8:12pm
The Bar Council, Harris Ibrahim and Sean Ang are reported in the
MCPXNew Straits Times on September 10 to have said that members of parliament crossing the floor to join another party is legal but immoral.
It is therefore necessary to draw the attention of the public to several fundamental principles with regard to the issue on the morality of MPs crossing the floor.
Crossing the floor to sit as a member of parliament in another political party is nothing new in parliamentary democracies. It has been described as the height of treachery. It has also been praised as the stuff which parliamentarian heroes are made of.
The great Sir Winston Churchill is perhaps the most famous parliamentarian to cross the floor and switch allegiance on more than one occasion.
There is no dispute that crossing the floor for money or personal gain is both immoral and a betrayal of the voters’ trust. However, when the MP crosses not for personal gain but in the interest and welfare of his constituents then he should be commended.
The argument that crossing is immoral is that the MP was elected on his erstwhile political party’s ticket and that is amounts to a fraud on his voters. This argument is founded on two assumptions. The first is that the MP’s seat belongs to the political party. The second is that the MP was voted in based on his party’s platform and policies.
The assumptions are wrong and the argument has failed to take into consideration several objectives and purposes of certain fundamental principles of a parliamentary constitutional system.
Upon a proper understanding of these fundamental principles, it will be seen that far from being immoral, the ability for MPs to cross the floor is not only moral but part of the democratic process.
The argument that the voters have elected the MP on the party’s ticket and that the seat belongs to the party and not the MP arises from a confusion over the nature of the electoral systems in use. There are two major electoral systems in the world’s democracies:
The first is the constituency-based electoral system. By this system, voters in each local area or constituency elect an individual candidate. The person who wins the majority of votes in each constituency becomes a member of parliament.
The party with the majority of MPs forms the government. In this system, the individual MP and not the party holds the seat. This means the MP can cross the floor and still keep his seat.
The second is the proportional representation system. By this system, the electorate in a large area, for example, a province or a country votes for political parties. The political party chooses the people who will become MPs. Each party is allocated a number of seats proportional to the number of votes it receives in the election. In this system, the seat belongs to the party and the MP who crosses the floor cannot keep his seat.
The electoral system used in Malaysia is the constituency-based system. Therefore, the argument that the MP has stolen his party’s seat when he crosses the floor is not supported upon a proper understanding of the constituency based electoral system.
The constituency based system provides for individuals and not political parties to be the candidates for election to the Dewan Rakyat. This is shown by independents, persons who do not belong to any political party, to contest.
The candidate is elected not only on the policies and political ideology but also his personal character and capability. The policies and manifesto of the individual candidate will substantially be similar with the policies of other candidates from his party but there will also be differences according to the specific needs of the constituency and the candidate’s own capabilities.
The party ticket is therefore a grouping of individual candidates professing to hold similar policies and ideology. However, the constituents are voting for the individual candidate based on his policies, his personal capabilities and personal commitment.
The party ticket argument also fails to give effect to the provisions of Articles 43(1) and 43(4) of the Federal Constitution. Article 43(1) provides that the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong is to appoint the prime minister who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Dewan Rakyat.
Article 43(4) provides that the prime minister is to tender the resignation of his cabinet if he ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Dewan Rakyat.
The effect of our electoral system and the operation of these two articles are that the constituents have given the power to the majority of the 222 members of parliament to decide who, from amongst them, is to be the prime minister.
The tenure of the 222 and their power is fixed. It continues until the next general election. The tenure of the prime minister, however, is not fixed and not immutable. It is subject to the prime minister continuing to enjoy the confidence of the majority of the 222 throughout the term of the Parliament.