PARLIAMENT is a vital institution for formulating laws and policies, as well as for state-making and nation-building in a democratic state. Its business is in accordance with the nation’s Constitution and parliamentary standing order. It is also guided by the state’s principles and values for progress, peace and security.
In Malaysia, the above process must be carried out with caution to avoid upsetting racial, religious, cultural and socioeconomic sensitivities.
The functions must be executed with solidarity, honesty, tolerance and sacrifices from lawmakers across all divides. They should also be driven by historical narratives, past and present realities, and the ability to restrain democratic rights for the sake of national resilience and unity.
Hence, no political elites or lawmakers should attempt to build a better tomorrow based on hypocrisy or by wiping out historical narratives. All leaders and lawmakers have to accept these prerequisites. This is because security, survival, prosperity and unity — as Malaysia’s most cherished core national values — cannot be achieved through falsehood, hypocrisy or the paradoxes of words and actions.
Malaysia did not emerge from an uninhabited territory. It was constitutionally built through the design of British colonialism which incorporated the sons of-the soil reality with others who lived in this country before independence. As such, many security scholars regarded Malaysia as a “plural” state with “extensive grounds for conflict”. Its lawmakers must mitigate the state’s “ethnic balances” with wisdom, and its prime minister must at times act sternly and decisively to deter conflict or even civil war.
Unfortunately, certain Pakatan Harapan (PH) leaders and lawmakers are insensitive to such a finding. Their previous egoistic opposition to “idealism” persisted, although they are already in power, where reforms and changes should be their priority. As such, Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad is endlessly saddled with numerous and unnecessary polemics, controversies and provocations centring on “political idealism” contained in PH’s election manifesto.
They made press statements relating to several issues which could actually be ironed out through the PH intra-party mechanisms and the spirit of comradeship. They made provocative statements without considering their impact on the credibility of the government.
Recent polemics on the chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee, appointed in accordance with Clause 77 of the Parliament’s Standing Order, for example, could have been resolved through the ruling coalition’s pre-council meeting before any parliamentary sitting. At this meeting, government lawmakers are briefed on matters concerning a specific parliamentary session. They are allowed to voice out problems, grievances or seek enlightenment over critical issues.
Government lawmakers should also abide by the instruction of the components’ chief parliamentary whip who is normally the deputy prime minister. In the absence of this practice, PH surely has other mechanisms to instil discipline among its lawmakers during a parliamentary session. This mechanism is not to gag the ruling party’s lawmakers, but to maintain decorum, facilitate an orderly parliamentary session and avoid embarrassment to the government. PH is a new ruling coalition. Its credibility and integrity are constantly being scrutinised and judged by the people. The integrity of certain PH top leaders is also being doubted by some Malaysians and foreign observers. Hence, a polemic that escalated to labelling Dr Mahathir “a former dictator” is unwelcome.
As a former lawmaker under the Mahathir Administration (1981-2003), I can irrevocably vouch that Dr Mahathir was not a dictator. While “a dictator is a political leader who possesses absolute power”, Dr Mahathir had tirelessly strived for the betterment of Malaysia and its people through power-sharing approaches.
Many empirical evidences showed that Dr Mahathir employed the “whole of nation”, “whole of society” approaches to solve problems during times of crisis. One of them was related to his struggle to salvage Malaysia from the 1997 financial crisis through the setting up of the National Economic Action Council involving all political parties and incorporating relevant corporate leaders and non-governmental organisations.
Dr Mahathir’s unconventional socioeconomic, financial and fiscal approaches were condemned by certain world powers. But these approaches saved Malaysia from financial ruin and bankruptcy. Dr Mahathir told me in an exclusive interview on April 25, 2011, that “several western powers had at that time, ridiculed him about his knowledge of finance”. “They said my knowledge about it was so little that it could even be listed at the back of a stamp.”
The unconventional financial fiscal approach was eventually adopted by the most advanced countries in the western world.
This historical amnesia syndrome among lawmakers has no place in Malaysian politics. It is also politically incorrect and morally inappropriate to label Dr Mahathir a “former dictator”.
The writer was a member of parliament for Parit Sulong, Johor, from 1990 to 2004.