AUGUST 4 — The political crisis in Selangor and the position of the Mentri Besar is not a strange phenomenon as witnessed in the past with Datuk Abu Hassan Omar, Tan Sri Mohd Taib to Datuk Seri Khir Toyo.

The crisis in the richest state of Malaysia have seen changes in leadership in mid terms ranging from scandals to political manoeuvring for power with Pakatan Rakyat not being an exception.

The Selangor Mentri Besar crisis is not the first of its kind in Malaysia as it also happened in the Barisan Nasional government in Terengganu just a few months ago. The crisis in its own term reveal the process of decision making to elect, remove or change a Mentri Besar as an internal party decision in the interest of pure politics or reasons best known to the party insiders in isolation of democratic principles or public assessment. Its impact as witnessed in Terengganu and Selangor further diminishes democratic growth as the public were not able to gauge and participate in the affairs of their own elected government due to its private state of affairs in the interest of politics.

The Selangor Menteri Besar crisis must be viewed in context as the Pakatan Rakyat coalition is not a legal entity like the Barisan Nasional where a decision is made base and representative of coalition parties for consensus.

In the case of Pakatan, the consensus is made by way of a support and endorsement of a simple majority from all the elected State Legislators irrespective of the party on the Chief Executive candidacy for the consent of the Sultan.

The very appointment of Tan Sri Khalid and previously Datuk Seri Nizar was done by way of a letter of support and endorsement due to its mixed representation of the Pakatan parties forming the government.

The letter is also a representation of a vote of confidence and endorsed by the Sultan subject to further capacity and qualification scrutiny as governed by State laws and convention.

The appointment of the Mentri Besar is purely on the platform of the State Legislatures as in individual vote of support and the Royal endorsement for its legal effect.

In the case of Selangor Mentri Besar, the previous consensus base on the 2013 General election remains and valid until and unless a new consensus are made and represented through a formal letter of support.

Its therefore begs the question of why can’t Pakatan Rakyat who enjoys 44 seats out of 56 (with both PKR & DAP with 32) couldn’t come up with a new consensus for a new Mentri Besar with a simple majority?

This is easily achievable with or without the unison support from the 12 PAS MPs & the Mentri Besar himself as in democracy, consensus were never 100 per cent or without an opposing view.

Pakatan Rakyat clearly has the numbers for a new consensus in all angles.

All it takes is for Pakatan Rakyat leadership to get the support and endorsement of 30 MPs with both PKR and DAP with a few PAS MPs to put forward a new appointee for the royal endorsement.

The position could be clearly achieved with the involvement of agreeing PAS MPs as clarified by its Deputy President as in the autonomous decision making by PAS MPs as Selangor State Legislators and its leadership.

The simple majority could also be easily achieved even without the support of PAS MPs and Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim.

The coalition also has indicated its confidence of endorsement from the Sultan, dismissing any involvement from the Royal Palace with the suggestion of an unprecedented move for a woman Mentri Besar as per the recently concluded Kajang Move. So why can’t Pakatan Rakyat who clearly have the numbers with PKR & DAP and some PAS MPs or even without to submit their consensus to the Sultan for Datin Seri Wan Azizah?

It is especially so when it was clearly demonstrated that there are no issue with the final endorsement of the Mentri Besar by the Sultan over and above the majority advantage?

In whatever circumstances, consensuses are needed to elect, change or remove a Mentri Besar with the Sultans endorsement, so why beat around the bush?

In the alternative, if the parties don’t have the numbers or consensus to replace the Mentri Besar, then all parties should respect the democratic processes and move on with life.

If in case there is a serious misconduct on part of the Mentri Besar that warrants a removal, then the State Legislators have all the right to refer and take disciplinary with due process transparently in the interest of justice and democracy.

It is out of normality to read and discover a trial by media and political attack by MPs who are not the State Legislators on Selangor State matters to remove a State Chief Executive. It is also out of reason for such crisis of leadership while there are clear legal process to determine wrong doing ranging from MACC to Pakatan Rakyat’s own processes as in the State Legislature as in the Select Committee on Competency, Accountability and Transparency (SELCAT).

From the onset of the name itself, the notion of competency and transparency of the Chief Executives leadership is covered enough for the leaders from DAP and PKR to impeach the Mentri Besar base on their own structure.

The issue as it appears and presented to shake the position of the Mentri Besar is the Selangor water crisis.

The Selangor water issue is a collective responsibility of the State Cabinet base on previous collective decisions and a fundamental human rights matter that requires a higher standard of measure and discussion in an objective and transparent manner for deliberation.

It’s a matter that affects the right of the public and should not just be treated as a mere political issue with unilateral declarations and personal opinions in the media without any form of accountability or structural deliberation.

It is a matter for an expert research and proper projection and risk assessment in a committee level. Why can’t Pakatan Rakyat handle the alleged incompetency and wrong doing with proper action as in SELCAT or its equivalent and form a new consensus base on the findings and outcome? It is to be established that even criminals deserve a due process and justice in transparent manner in a proper forum, if not for the issue of incompetence or political wrong doing?

The Selangor Mentri Besar crisis as it stands begs the question of the method and manner in which an elected Menteri Besar on oath is removed or replaced in the interest of public and democracy.

The question of selection and candidacy of a Mentri Besar as per convention remains as an internal party decision or coalition without a doubt, but it must be exercised in adherence to principles of democracy, justice and rights due to the public nature of the office and a person’s right and integrity.

The Selangor situation portrays an unhealthy development for a growing democracy that demands for due process and greater public participation and transparency in the appointment and removal of office bearers.

This principle is best illustrated by the recently anointed President of Indonesia, Joko Widowo who went to include public participation in the selection of Ministers from multiple candidacies with a clear system of engagement from the civil societies and the public at large.

Its 2014 and the era of cold war is over.

In the case of Selangor, public opinion and participation is virtually nil or insignificance but for the theatrics of few national leaders and their personal opinions. Democracy is a dynamic process inclusive of the public beyond the ballot box as dictated by participatory democracy.

The issue is of public interest and democracy demands for structures and standards to be observed as the interest of the voters doesn’t end with the ballot box but continuous.

Political parties are duty bound to act in utmost transparency and due process in the impeachment or replacement of a Mentri Besar on oath for non-medical or incapacity reason and facilitate the public with proper structure, forum and methodology.

The voters have the right to know and be told in an utmost transparent way on the reason of the removal and it must be done with due process in a just and democratic manner.

The current practice as seen in the case of Selangor and Terengganu is a failure to adhere to democracy and rights as its governing principle and effective engagement of the Legislative structures for a solution.

The solution to the Selangor Mentri Besar crisis is another example of piece meal democracy where in post-election situation, the question of position and executive leadership remains a political game with real politics as its only consideration.

In the case of Selangor, the solution is to either impeach the Mentri Besar if problems were discovered with due process and just manner and followed by a new consensus or move on with life and pending duties.

In case, the crisis is of confidence on the entire Selangor administration, then a fresh state election is paramount and for the people of Selangor to decide the faith of their own state and its affairs.

The solution is staring straight into the eyes from the very name of the parties involved, as the name People’s Justice and Democratic Action where justice and fairness were not only be done but done with public interest and be seen to be done, especially when it involves the Chief Executive of a State government on oath.

It is in the interest of the people and the monarchy to act in cognisance and guided by facts and processes. It’s time for true reform and the reform of legislature both in process and mentality in the interest of the very people the political parties seek to represent.

The Rakyat.

* K.Shan is the chairman of the National Institute for Electoral Integrity and Democracy and a consultant with various human rights and development bodies. He was formerly the campaign co-ordinator of Amnesty International Malaysia.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malay Mail Online.