LAWS, representing society’s ethical compass, are crucial in maintaining order and justice. They encapsulate collective moral standards, acting as a reflection of society's values and principles.
However, while laws appear robust and unyielding, they often fall prey to corrupt practices that can undermine their very essence. Conversely, ethical and moral standards, rooted in subjective human nature, present their own challenges. Yet, through the exertion of societal pressure, we can often steer towards the right decisions, embodying our collective integrity and conscience.
Malaysia’s enactment of the anti-party hopping law in 2022, designed to prevent elected representatives from switching political parties post-election, serves as an illustrative case.
The amendment to the Federal Constitution was to address a longstanding concern about political instability and betrayal of voter trust, including cases in 1990 in Kelantan, 1994 in Sabah, 2008 in Perak, and the most infamous of all, the Sheraton Move in 2020.
The defection of politicians, or "party hopping," has historically marred Malaysia's political landscape, undermining democratic processes and breeding cynicism among the electorate.
While the enacted federal law provides a concrete framework to address the issue, its effectiveness is contingent on genuine adherence and execution, free from political influences. Political manoeuvres and enticements can still find their way around legal stipulations. Thus, the integrity of such laws is often only as strong as the system that upholds them.
Ethics and moral standards, though less tangible, can fortify the spirit of such laws. However, the inherent subjectivity of ethics poses its own set of challenges. Different stakeholders may hold divergent views on what constitutes ethical behaviour in politics, leading to debates and disagreements. While allowing for a dynamic and changing moral landscape, this subjectivity occasionally leads to ambiguities that those with vested interests can take advantage of.
The "defection" of Bersatu members who chose to support Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, while not renouncing their party affiliation, highlights the intricate dance between ethical governance and the exploitation of legal loopholes.
The recent spate of defections from Bersatu illustrates how legal frameworks, no matter how well-intended, can be circumvented to serve political agendas. These MPs, while technically not resigning from Bersatu, exploited a loophole that allowed them to dodge the consequences of the anti-hopping laws.
The situation took a pivotal turn when amendments to the Bersatu constitution led to the formal cessation of these MPs’ membership in the party. This shift places the onus squarely on the government of the day to address and rectify the ethical implications of such defections.
As custodians of democracy, the current administration must navigate this complex situation with prudence and integrity. The ruling government must consider the potential long-term ramifications of their actions, recognising that they too could face similar challenges in the future.
Wouldn’t they want seats to be vacated when MPs no longer toe their party line? We are beyond discussing freedom of association now that the law is in place.
Nonetheless, under a democratic system, these MPs still have the option to seek legal remedy from the judiciary, which would offer more clarification of the law.
For the Unity Government, it would still be in charge with 147 seats even if Bersatu were to win back the contested parliamentary seats in a hypothetical by-election. While the government falls just one seat short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass constitutional amendments, it is arguably more advantageous for Pakatan Harapan, as a party founded on progressive reforms, to adhere to anti-party hopping principles rather than appear desperate to retain power–since they are not actually at risk of losing it.
Considering Malaysia's deep societal division, it may not be the most opportune moment to implement changes that could potentially undermine not only the government's future prospects but, more significantly, Malaysia's stability.
In this light, it is imperative for the government to uphold democratic institutions and principles. While political expediency might tempt leaders to capitalise on such defections for short-term gains, doing so risks eroding public trust in the very institutions that underpin democracy. Therefore, the government must not only ensure that the spirit of the anti-party hopping law is upheld but also work towards closing any loopholes that may exist.
Public sentiment also plays a critical role.
A politically astute and ethically conscious electorate can exert pressure on leaders to act with integrity. The Malaysian populace's reaction to these defections, bolstered by media scrutiny and civil society activism, can significantly influence the government’s response and drive meaningful reforms.
When politicians know they are under the watchful eye of an ethically driven electorate, they are less inclined to engage in behaviour that would betray voter trust. The fear of public backlash, reputational damage, and potential legal consequences can act as powerful deterrents.
While laws aim to reflect society’s ethical standards, their concrete structure is not immune to manipulation. Ethical and moral standards, though subjective, play a crucial role in shaping and reinforcing these laws. Malaysia’s experience with the anti-party hopping law underscores the importance of societal pressure in ensuring the effectiveness of legislation.
When citizens, united by common ethical standards, hold their leaders accountable, they contribute to the integrity and functionality of the legal framework, paving the way for a more trustworthy and stable political system.
Syaza Shukri, PhD, is an associate professor and the current Head at the Department of Political Science, IIUM. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of Sinar Daily.