JANUARY 30 — Malaysians have never voted for their prime minister, past or present.
If you’re a lifelong Kelantan, Perlis, Terengganu, Negri Sembilan, Perak, Selangor, Wilayah Persekutuan, Negri Sembilan, Melaka, Sabah or Sarawak voter — 10 of the 14 states — then you’ve never seen a prime minister’s name on the ballot sheet the Election Commission clerk hands out in polling booths.
Consider the 90 per cent who’ve never directly ticked for or against a PM. [N1]
This can change instantaneously — well after a series of Constitutional amendments, I suppose. And voila, rather than constant bickers on who Malaysians really want as PM as opposed to who controls the Dewan Rakyat, the support is determined at the end of polling day.
Not tall tales about who’s been in politics or prison longer, not about whose rallies have more attendees or how many phone/online surveys they can afford with unsurprising results.
Twenty million plus voters to have all contenders on a single sheet and pick their favourite. Add the votes up and declare the winner. [N2]
Leave no doubt. Whether it’s Mahathir Mohamad, Anwar Ibrahim, Najib Razak, Azmin Ali, Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, Muhyiddin Yassin, Zahid Hamidi, Hadi Awang, Siti Kasim or Azwan Ali, it’ll be known.
Since the majority are men, and in local politics displaying machismo is a rite of passage, they can all go mano a mano against each other in a Royal Rumble with ringside seats for all Malaysians.
How’s that for a solution?
The right to choose
Since Merdeka, prime ministers possess immense powers with neither Parliament — both houses, which are at the PM’s beckon call — nor their party — less they risk an implosion — able to rein in the man in Seri Perdana, once appointed by the Agong.
Excessively potent, and in many senses the only office to decide the fate of all Malaysians, why are all Malaysians denied the chance to select their PM rather than relying on their MP determining him by proxy?
Presently, as in all Westminster-based parliamentary systems, voters elect their respective members of parliament. The man with a perceived majority support of the total MPs — which is anything more than 112 members from the 222 total — is called to form government.
Some say, in Malaysia, MPs are godlike on election night, till the prime minister is sworn in. After that, MPs are merely underlings, and expected to grovel for Cabinet positions.
It’s not far from the truth, when weighed, the prime minister’s department’s prowess to instruct ministers, ministries, MPs, mentri besars and chief ministers.
Compound that with the councils, boards, agencies and GLCs under the PM and the matter stifles the brain from thinking. As the brain is crushed by the PM’s power sledgehammer.
With so much at stake in the hands of one man, why not let the people choose from the contenders the truest one for their aspirations?
Complications
Aye, aplenty.
A directly elected PM risks collision with the legislative.
Would Bills and annual Budgets get held hostage by a recalcitrant Parliament?
The lower house might be controlled by opponents to the PM’s party or coalition. Senators, appointed largely by the prime minister, won’t assist but only add to the executive-legislative confrontations.
Israel flunked with the direct-election experiment (1992-2000) when outflanked by voters who split their votes, forcing Knesset (Parliament) to face an enemy PM. The plan to increase stability through a direct elect succumbed to strategic voters.
This is equally true in the US, of disruption when the President and at least one half of Congress are at odds. Manufactured executive-legislative discord.
Additionally, further friction is probable when the PM appoints private sector leaders to run ministries, rather than the traditional secondment from Parliament.
These encumbrances explain why India and other countries toyed with the proposition but only to back off.
Our frustrations
But still, it is a compelling response for the current political quagmire.
Pundits agree coalition politics is here to stay. No party likely dominates the Dewan Rakyat, and all parties inside a necessary coalition find — to the chagrin of voters — enough numerical significance to cyclically destabilise the grouping to advance their leaders’ interests.
If there are more than three partners with most of them touching base with each other in MP counts, opportunistic behaviour would be rife. A directly elected prime minister has a direct mandate from the people. Parliament can hinder the executive’s efficacy but won’t reduce the administration’s lifespan.
Population power
There’s the indirect effect.
A direct vote multiplies Semenanjung west coast’s grip on power. Two-thirds of the country resides there — with a quarter of Malaysia in the Klang Valley. When counted on votes and not on MPs, they have a bigger say on who becomes prime minister.
The relevance of power will transfer to where voters are rather than to the idiosyncrasies of gerrymander and malapportionment.
It does, however, risk lowering the political weight of Borneo, and therefore its federal funding. [N3]
The burdensome present
The longer they wait for Mahathir to step aside for one of them, the peacocking escalates.
Hardly a day passes without one of the heirs-apparent talking up his own chances or cooling down talk of him as next in line — obviously a false modesty exercise and a dysfunctional way of expressing he does not want the job he desperately seeks.
Meanwhile, Malaysians are trudging along wishing there is more leadership and less competition to lead.
Those in the power queue are forced to present evidence of broad support. From holding religious events, crafting large rallies, embellishing multiculturalism by attending minority ceremonies, the personalities are out to impress.
A direct election may not end these circus shows but it may alter the dynamics in the long run as coalition politics reigns over Parliament for the foreseeable future. The prime minister can face its scrutiny but is spared the need to scavenge perpetually for support in it to survive.
In that there’s incentive to explore the option further. Perhaps, for the present political system’s survival. Plus, it furthers the idea of every man having a say for the only position of true power in the country. That’s reason to consider it a tad bit seriously.
* Notes:
[N1] Only those from seven or eight constituencies in Kedah, Penang, Pahang and Johor have voted for a PM. Or boss, leader of the pack, king of the hill, Cabinet overlord or whatever else to call the top political master of the land.
[N2] A run-off election might be necessary if the winner has less than 50 per cent. The French presidency adopts this when an absolute majority is not with the victor. Top two go against each other. Or adopt the Australian preferential vote method to mitigate the problem.
[N3] Sabah, Sarawak and Labuan’s 57 seats from 222 has a 26 per cent influence on the PM selection. If by voter population when picking the PM, then Borneo would drop to between 18-22 per cent in strength to influence the pick. How much pull Borneo brings to the PM race determines how much it can demand from the federal government.
** This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
