Political frogs - shot or kissed?

Political frogs - to be shot darts at or to be kissed? Just last week, Bota assemblyman Datuk Nasarudin Hashim left Umno to join PKR. He did not resign as MP or call for a by-election. Now, the latest brouhaha is on Behrang assemblyman Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi, who just quit PKR and became an Independent. He is also insistent on staying as MP and not calling for a by-election. The Election Commission has also made the same ruling.

There are some who say that such political frogs should be punished as they are betraying the mandate of the rakyat who voted them under their party flag. Hence, by-elections should be called to see if those people will still vote them in given that they are now representing another party.

The other side of the coin is that our Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of association (Article 10, 1c). In the Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan v. Nordin Salleh [1992] 1 MLJ 697 case, the Supreme Court had held that Article XXX1A of Part I of the Constitution of the State of Kelantan was unconstitutional as it contradicted Article (10)(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution. In other words, political representatives cannot be punished by taking away their seat if they were to switch political parties as they are entitled to the freedom of association.

So, is it ethical to continue your tenure as MP despite switching your political allegiance? It is not so easy to give a quick answer "Yes" or "No". There are a few flaws in each argument. In the former argument, the flaw lies in the main premise "The people voted them in based on the political party they represent". If indeed people vote MPs in solely because of the political party they represent, then yes, it is unethical and just plain cheating if you get in on your party ticket, but switch parties as soon as it is convenient.

But, that premise could very well be false. Not all MPs are voted in just because of the party they represent; it is highly likely that some MPs were voted because of who they are, irrespective of which party they belong to. If that premise is false, then the argument that it is unethical to switch parties without calling for a by-election, is severely weakened.

It is not so easy to say "Oh, let's just call a by-election anyway to find out whether you were really voted because of who you are, or because of the party you represent. If it is the former, then you have nothing to worry about."

The fact is that one really does have something to worry about if a by-election takes place. Given the corrupt nature of Malaysian elections with phantom voters and all, it is just too easy to manipulate the system to your advantage. So, you could very well "lose" the election even though majority of the people vote for you.

In the second argument, freedom of association seems to be defined as being able to make your own associations without being punished (ie: losing your seat) for it. Personally, I think that these definitions are too narrow. Freedom of association, like freedom of speech, should come with certain boundaries.

While one should be able to voice her thoughts on how the ISA is unconstitutional, or that "sexy" concerts are the bane of Malaysian morality, one should not be allowed to articulate hatred or advocate the genocide of a racial group. In the same way, while one may have the freedom to join a certain religious group or political party, one should not be allowed to use that freedom in contexts which jeopardizes democratic processes.

In Perak, where currently Pakatan Rakyat holds 31 seats as compared to BN's 27, crossing over while still keeping your seat could easily change the ruling government. Democracy is then violated because the people did not vote BN to be the government of Perak. Whether they happened to vote for their favorite politicians (irrespective of party) or for the parties the politicans represented is irrelevant. The point is, because of the votes of the majority, Pakatan became the ruling government of Perak. To change that without gaining the approval of the rakyat is a violation of democracy.

So, in conclusion, I would say that crossing over without resigning and holding by-elections is unethical regardless of the "goodness" of the end in mind.