Common stand needed on party-hopping
When is a parliamentarian a people’s representative from a party, and when is (s)he a party’s representative for the people? This question lies at the heart of the party-hopping issue.
For an elected representative to switch sides after getting elected smacks of insincerity and deception.
But is an MP elected more on the basis of party affiliation or personal capacity and individual identity?
Opponents of party-hopping might argue that election candidates are perceived first as party officials, and judged accordingly.
Those who accept party-hopping might insist that candidates are judged first on their own merits and record, making party affiliation a secondary consideration.
But for many voters, particularly those disappointed by an elected candidate hopping between parties, such arguments seem tedious and even misleading.
Perhaps more than anything else, the subject and the arguments around it carry a whiff of opportunism.
It is something of a given that when party-hopping works to the advantage of one’s party, it is approved of. When it works to one’s partisan disadvantage, it is rejected and condemned.
The Malaysian electorate surely deserve better than such cheap parlour tricks. A consistent stand has to be taken on the issue, because anything less amounts to taking no ethical stand at all.
Whether an MP is regarded first as a party operative or a people’s agent depends on a variety of factors, among them local situation, political environment, individual personality and pertinent election issues.
These factors vary from place to place and from time to time, but one thing remains constant: When voters enter the voting booth to make their selection, the choice before them is the party logo or name, not the candidate’s name or face.
There are at least three more vital considerations: The balance of MPs determines the Government of the day; if party-hopping becomes habitual, everyone suffers; a culture of party-hopping demeans democracy.
It is hard to disagree with the point that when MPs can no longer work with their own parties, they should quit and seek re-election.
However, once a national stand is taken officially on party-hopping, MPs may need to be governed by regulations applicable to all who seek to serve.
For an elected representative to switch sides after getting elected smacks of insincerity and deception.
But is an MP elected more on the basis of party affiliation or personal capacity and individual identity?
Opponents of party-hopping might argue that election candidates are perceived first as party officials, and judged accordingly.
Those who accept party-hopping might insist that candidates are judged first on their own merits and record, making party affiliation a secondary consideration.
But for many voters, particularly those disappointed by an elected candidate hopping between parties, such arguments seem tedious and even misleading.
Perhaps more than anything else, the subject and the arguments around it carry a whiff of opportunism.
It is something of a given that when party-hopping works to the advantage of one’s party, it is approved of. When it works to one’s partisan disadvantage, it is rejected and condemned.
The Malaysian electorate surely deserve better than such cheap parlour tricks. A consistent stand has to be taken on the issue, because anything less amounts to taking no ethical stand at all.
Whether an MP is regarded first as a party operative or a people’s agent depends on a variety of factors, among them local situation, political environment, individual personality and pertinent election issues.
These factors vary from place to place and from time to time, but one thing remains constant: When voters enter the voting booth to make their selection, the choice before them is the party logo or name, not the candidate’s name or face.
There are at least three more vital considerations: The balance of MPs determines the Government of the day; if party-hopping becomes habitual, everyone suffers; a culture of party-hopping demeans democracy.
It is hard to disagree with the point that when MPs can no longer work with their own parties, they should quit and seek re-election.
However, once a national stand is taken officially on party-hopping, MPs may need to be governed by regulations applicable to all who seek to serve.
MOHD ADHA MOHD ZAIN (ADHA ZAIN)
Blogger Informasi
