Tonberry says “the party whip is just a lame excuse. It may or may not be – depending on arguments – but the principle of it is embedded deep within our parliamentary tradition (even in UK), and the exceptions to it are not clear.

Even if BN MPs think that ISA is bad for the country, and ought to be made an exception based on national interests overriding partisan concerns, they will think that the call for review should be at BN component parties’ initiative at their convenience, expedience and timing.

For if they support the opposition initiated petition, any good – in terms of rakyat, electors/voters goodwill – that will be reaped from the popular repeal of or amendment to the unpopular ISA should go to BN and not Pakatan Rakyat (PR) or YB Lim Kit Siang.

This is politics and political strategy lah, not just a simple equation of lacking guts or inconsistency between MCA/Gerakan delegates’ resolutions against their MPs/ministers actions.

Let us look at the converse situation of a PKR’s Kulim Bandar Baharu MP (Zulkifli Nordion) who first protested against the Bar Council forum on “Conversion to Islam” in August, where he was accused of barging into the forum and making an inciteful speech, accusing the Bar Council of supporting apostasy and later on, in a parliamentary session on 25th Oct, had an outburst attacking various quarters for challenging Islam, saying that the Faith was being attacked from “the left, right, above, below, behind or in front, whether from the ruling party or from this side,” referring to the opposition benches.

Supposing according to his conscience and beliefs, he really believes and meant the position he took represents national interest and that he ought not to toe party’s line.

Will the PR tolerate this dissent? Will its top decision makers not either discipline him or at least block his ascendancy within the party/coalition?

Already PKR’s partners in PR said that Zulkifli Nordin is “dancing to Umno’s tune after the MP’s outburst on insults against Islam in Parliament on Oct 25th. “He has fallen into their trap and is dancing to their tune,” Selangor Pas deputy commisioner Khalid Samad told The Malaysian Insider. “It hurts our credibility. He seems to think he is the only defender of Islam,” Khalid said adding that if Muslims insist that everything is taboo, it would be difficult for non-Muslims to respect and be attracted to the faith.

DAP vice-chairman Tan Kok Wai also expressed his regret over the matter, agreeing with Khalid that Zulkifli was playing into Umno’s hands and that his action was damaging Pakatan Rakyat’s credibility. “It is very straightforward that it hurts our credibility. Many members of the public are unhappy with PKR for not taking action after Zulkifli’s behaviour at the Bar Council forum,” he said.
(Source : The Malaysian Insider report of Oct 26th )

The only difference in Zulkifli Nordin’s stand/action is that his was not the considered and common stand of his party (PKR) as none of his party members have echoed the same sentiments : whereas in the case of Billy Abit Jol and the others in MCA & Gerakan who are not as brave/defiant as Billy Abit, it was the common party stand of MCA & Gerakan (as confirmed by party delegates resolutions) as may well be that of Billy’s Party Rakyat Sarawak’s stand, that ISA should be reviewed, amended or repealed!

The trouble is within BN these component parties consider UMNO as “big brother” (much as they would publicly repudiate otherwise) and they look to UMNO’s position on ISA as reflective of the collective BN’s stand by which component parties must toe the line based on “Party whip” spirit (if not letter) in this larger context, notwithstanding a contrary stand at individual component party level had been made.

What it all proves is that whatever the protests to the contrary these component parties treat UMNO as “taiko”, dominant party, big boss, and the day they want to be treated equally with equal say will be the day they are prepared to leave the BN’s political firmament.

Party Whip is a parliamentary practice and convention to clarify/explain the apparent disjunction between MCA/Gerakan delegates’ resolutions against the ISA and the relunctance of their MPs to lend their signatures to the petition in support of a mere parliamentary debate on ISA’s review.

It also serves as an excuse – in reapolitik terms. I have tried to show how it could aply to both BN MPs as well as PR MPs as well.

However is it a good excuse? This is matter of debate depending on whether one looks solely from point of view of (1) ethical principles or (2) realpolitik principles.

However I have no beef whatsoever with KennyGan (or anyone from our perspective as rakyat) taking approach in (1) and denouncing it as either poor excuse or no excuse.

From perspective (1), I can also offer no defence to the charge of what KennyGan calls the “spineless attitude of the component parties especially MCA and Gerakan who have spoken out against the ISA”.

Dear Kenny,

If I were to believe that politics to politicians is really about fighting and achieving things like truth, justice and benefit of the very people who place them in that high public position of trust, I am with you all the way that what MCA/Gerakan MPs are duplicitious (I like the part that you describe that “they have no conscience and no independent voice except for play acting in front of party members and the rakyat while furiously ‘winking’ at Umno to convey their true intent”).

Sadly politicians as a class anywhere are (except for very few) exceptions) not inclined to making principled stands of the kind above mentioned, and we have reason to think MCA’s or Gerakan’s politicians hold higher claims than the average.

Political ambitions make cowards of most, and compromise is the order of the day.

In Gerakan & MCA cases, one can’t even remember the first time – probably decades ago – when principles that ran against their professed convictions began to win the day and compromises were made in exchange for “power sharing” ie sharing of what proportionately are crumbs in the process, selling out the expectations of their constituencies leading to what eventually happened on 8th March when the latter rejected them.

I therefore do not have high expectations. I always admit my expectations are several notches below.I certainly don’t expect them to suddenly experience a spinal cord regeneration and protrude a spine after 30 years of being political invertebrate.

I have assumed their subserviance as an accepted truism – of which there can be little contention in this regard – and have pursued the discussion more along practical real politik terms than the strict ethical line that you seemed to have taken (with no problem on my part). :)

“….we have NO reason to think MCA’s or Gerakan’s politicians hold higher claims than the average….” as well.

I have always considered Kit an exception. It is based on many personal sacrifices made, he spoke even as the voice in wilderness for the Malaysian Cause for which Malaysians owe him a debt of gratitude difficult to repay.

As for many other politicians in Opposition camp, the acid test is not what they say now as much as what they do when they come to power. Like they say the “proof of the pudding is in the eating” ie the true value or quality of something can. only be judged when it’s put to use or tried and tested…

When discussing about BN’s politicians – whose trepidations – are known, discussion is probably more useful if sometimes proceeded upon real politik terms factoring also their practical points of view and operating conditions on ground level.

In idealistic terms of moral absolutes, there is nothing much to discuss – except they are wrong, they are wrong and they are wrong and the discussion gets us no where by which we could influence them or their advisers to another course of action.

Take this concept – that those who have power will and ought to wield it to the best interest of the people – this precept is but an ideal, an aspiration, a kind of benchmark that we always fall back on when commenting judging this or that but is it realistic, not just in local politics but anywhere?

Yes politicians sometimes do it (act in best interest of their constituency) but it is only in order to secure votes to hold on to position and power but in other times they would also “steal” and engage in public corruption to enrich themselves if they think they can do so without getting caught, costing loss of votes if not ACA investigations.

Now we say it is immoral and wrong but they say it is higher duty to take care of their families well being including financial and turn around and say that we are hypocrites because given half the opportunity to sit in where they are sitting, we their critics, would personally not have rejected the temptations and benefits that power brings or conducted ourselves at a higher moral plane. Is that denied???

Now we say that there are politicians that are committed to moral politics and that they are in Opposition camps. That is true.

It is trite that if they were not so committed, they would have otherwise joined the government/ruling party benches.

However is their commitment to moral politics judged just by this?

It is submitted that it is better adjudged when the same opposition politicians were in position of power as when the Opposition takes over control of government, and then give them a bit of time to settle in before evaluating if they are as good as what they said. The “proof of the pudding is in the eating” and whether they are really “committed” to moral politics is better judged when they are in power than in Opposition’s camp.

(I am speaking of politicians in general, discussion of such nature requires, not talking of rare exceptions that exist).

Which brings us to the original question in this post: when evaluating and discussing the political issues – and taking into consideration the two caveats raised in preceding posting – is it useful or practical to do so from absolutely idealistic and moralistically absolute point of view as if every issue can be resolved by an answer available somewhere that is absolutely good or right and in another case, absolutely bad and wrong???

Even if whole point of morality is to lay down the ground rules of aspiration for a society and its members to strive for the “best”, it is, based on lived experiences, doubtful, that the best prevails here or anywhere else and that this over emphasis on morality without factoring in the equation the wider arc of realpolitik aspects and concerns – will help substantially to clarify or resolve, in practical sense, many of the complicated issues of politics abound.

This is perhaps the reason why I stand guilty of what KennyGan has described as my “jaded view of politicians” that infects what I say.