Collective onus trivialised
Josh HongPublished: Aug 5, 2011 6:44 PM | Updated: Aug 5, 2011 6:54 PM
When his country was confronted with the divisive issue of the abolition of the Corn Laws , British Prime Minister Lord Melbourne urged his cabinet to do the following:
“Bye the bye, there is one thing we haven’t agreed upon, which is, what are we to say? Is it better to make our corn dearer, or cheaper, or to make the price steady? I don’t care which: but we had better all tell the same story.”
What the Whig leader said at the time sums up the principle of collective cabinet, under which ministerial responsibility plays a vitally important role in a constitutional monarchy such as Malaysia.
When his country was confronted with the divisive issue of the abolition of the Corn Laws, British Prime Minister Lord Melbourne urged his cabinet to do the following:
“Bye the bye, there is one thing we haven’t agreed upon, which is, what are we to say? Is it better to make our corn dearer, or cheaper, or to make the price steady? I don’t care which: but we had better all tell the same story.”
What the Whig leader said at the time sums up the principle of collective cabinet, under which ministerial responsibility plays a vitally important role in a constitutional monarchy such as Malaysia.
While commanding a parliamentary majority enables a party or coalition to form the government of the day, collective responsibility as exemplified by cabinet ministers buttresses the legitimacy and integrity of the executive branch. It presents the government as cohesive and consistent, thereby making a smooth, if not seamless, running of public affairs possible.
An effective, efficient and united cabinet not only forces the opposition to perform better as an alternative government, it can also deter any attempt by the monarch to interfere in the political process. After all, constitutional monarchy calls for a ruler who will maintain his or her neutrality in politics at all costs, and a strong and solid government can easily frustrate plots to seek to undermine the constitutional arrangements.
I am quite intrigued by the way the concept of collective responsibility is practiced in Malaysia. Given the unique political landscape in this country, it is not uncommon to witness cabinet ministers from various race-based parties openly contradict each other’s position when it comes to ‘safeguarding’ communal interests.
Sometimes, even the top leaders are at odds over a government agenda, the proud declaration by Muhyiddin Yassin that he is first a Malay and then a Malaysian being the case in point, rendering Najib Abdul Razak’s 1Malaysia a complete farce.
Malaysian cabinets are not made of men and women of principle, with one minister after another failing to demonstrate conviction politics: Hishammuddin Hussein, Ng Yen Yen and Liow Tiong Lai come to mind, and the list goes on.
When Zaid Ibrahim resigned over the excessive and blatant use of the Internal Security Act in 2008, many were truly puzzled and were trying hard to make sense of his fury, for such valour is rare in the Barisan Nasional’s history.
Still, the same government has been able to hold itself together thanks to the past disarray in the opposition and, more importantly, the control of the press and the dearth of checks and balances across the board.
Heightened media scrutiny
Being in government does not preclude a lawmaker from prioritising his or her beliefs or ideologies. But the minister concerned must satisfy the public and the constituency that he or she has indeed fought a good and hard battle to gain concessions or compromise from the cabinet as a whole. The task is becoming increasingly tough because of the heightened media scrutiny with the advent of modern technology in general and the new media in particular.
For example: seeds of discord between Mahathir Mohamad and Musa Hitam were already sown in the early days of the so-called 2M administration, allegedly due to their differences over the ambitious and gigantic national car project. But the prime minister managed to keep the undercurrents from public scrutiny by virtue of the lack of press freedom.
The split was no doubt more serious than feared, and Mahathir finally found it virtually impossible to uphold the perception of unity four years into his leadership.
Najib has no such luck. The flourishing online media and the readily available information channels such as Facebook and Twitter have made suppressing news an insurmountable challenge. Even text messages are now considered by many as outdated and even ‘archaic’.
The impact of modernity on collective responsibility is huge and wide. Any slip of the tongue will make the rounds in no time and immediately be seized by detractors to implicate divisions within government. The speed with which news spreads also compels all government leaders to ensure greater discipline by singing the same tune.
Which leads me to question whether the Selangor state government under the chief ministership of Khalid Ibrahim can assert such authority. Since the state executive council operates in accordance with the principles of constitutional monarchy, all of its members are not supposed to issue statements that run counter to their collective responsibility.
In the aftermath of the raid by the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) on the Damansara Utama Methodist Church (DUMC), Hasan Ali (left), the state executive councillor in charge of Islamic affairs, defended the religious officials, the regrets expressed by the menteri besar notwithstanding.
Culture of impunity
Hasan’s defiance begs a very valid question: does the Pakatan Rakyat government, too, succumb to the culture of impunity which allows for its members to pursue personal aims at the expense of collective responsibility?
It is insufficient for Khalid Samad to refute Hasan by reiterating PAS’ overall position of tolerance and respect, or for Lim Kit Siang to chastise the maverick state executive councilor for not being a team player.
Sir William Ivor Jennings, a former vice-chancellor of Cambridge University and an authority on constitutional law, argues in his book Cabinet Government that ‘a minister who is not prepared to defend a cabinet decision must, therefore, resign’.
If what Hasan has been doing - from his preference for a blanket ban on alcoholic drinks to the current church raid issue - clearly violates his party’s stand, the Selangor PAS leadership or the menteri besar must remove him from government. Freed from collective responsibility, Hasan can then continue to defend to his heart’s content whatever action taken by Jais against Muslims or non-Muslims.
I understand from Khalid the menteri besar and Khalid the PAS liberal that what happened to the DUMC is not acceptable, and I shall await further action by the state government over the raid and, of course, over Hasan as well.
To paraphrase Lord Melbourne: Is it better for the Pakatan government to make religious policy clearer, or vaguer, or to make it more rational? I don’t care. But they had better all tell the same story. Period.
JOSH HONG studied politics at London Metropolitan University and the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. A keen watcher of domestic and international politics, he longs for a day when Malaysians will learn and master the art of self-mockery, and enjoy life to the full in spite of politicians.
“Bye the bye, there is one thing we haven’t agreed upon, which is, what are we to say? Is it better to make our corn dearer, or cheaper, or to make the price steady? I don’t care which: but we had better all tell the same story.”
What the Whig leader said at the time sums up the principle of collective cabinet, under which ministerial responsibility plays a vitally important role in a constitutional monarchy such as Malaysia.
While commanding a parliamentary majority enables a party or coalition to form the government of the day, collective responsibility as exemplified by cabinet ministers buttresses the legitimacy and integrity of the executive branch. It presents the government as cohesive and consistent, thereby making a smooth, if not seamless, running of public affairs possible.
An effective, efficient and united cabinet not only forces the opposition to perform better as an alternative government, it can also deter any attempt by the monarch to interfere in the political process. After all, constitutional monarchy calls for a ruler who will maintain his or her neutrality in politics at all costs, and a strong and solid government can easily frustrate plots to seek to undermine the constitutional arrangements.
I am quite intrigued by the way the concept of collective responsibility is practiced in Malaysia. Given the unique political landscape in this country, it is not uncommon to witness cabinet ministers from various race-based parties openly contradict each other’s position when it comes to ‘safeguarding’ communal interests.
Sometimes, even the top leaders are at odds over a government agenda, the proud declaration by Muhyiddin Yassin that he is first a Malay and then a Malaysian being the case in point, rendering Najib Abdul Razak’s 1Malaysia a complete farce.
Malaysian cabinets are not made of men and women of principle, with one minister after another failing to demonstrate conviction politics: Hishammuddin Hussein, Ng Yen Yen and Liow Tiong Lai come to mind, and the list goes on.
When Zaid Ibrahim resigned over the excessive and blatant use of the Internal Security Act in 2008, many were truly puzzled and were trying hard to make sense of his fury, for such valour is rare in the Barisan Nasional’s history.Still, the same government has been able to hold itself together thanks to the past disarray in the opposition and, more importantly, the control of the press and the dearth of checks and balances across the board.
Heightened media scrutiny
Being in government does not preclude a lawmaker from prioritising his or her beliefs or ideologies. But the minister concerned must satisfy the public and the constituency that he or she has indeed fought a good and hard battle to gain concessions or compromise from the cabinet as a whole. The task is becoming increasingly tough because of the heightened media scrutiny with the advent of modern technology in general and the new media in particular.
For example: seeds of discord between Mahathir Mohamad and Musa Hitam were already sown in the early days of the so-called 2M administration, allegedly due to their differences over the ambitious and gigantic national car project. But the prime minister managed to keep the undercurrents from public scrutiny by virtue of the lack of press freedom. The split was no doubt more serious than feared, and Mahathir finally found it virtually impossible to uphold the perception of unity four years into his leadership.
Najib has no such luck. The flourishing online media and the readily available information channels such as Facebook and Twitter have made suppressing news an insurmountable challenge. Even text messages are now considered by many as outdated and even ‘archaic’.
The impact of modernity on collective responsibility is huge and wide. Any slip of the tongue will make the rounds in no time and immediately be seized by detractors to implicate divisions within government. The speed with which news spreads also compels all government leaders to ensure greater discipline by singing the same tune.
Which leads me to question whether the Selangor state government under the chief ministership of Khalid Ibrahim can assert such authority. Since the state executive council operates in accordance with the principles of constitutional monarchy, all of its members are not supposed to issue statements that run counter to their collective responsibility.In the aftermath of the raid by the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) on the Damansara Utama Methodist Church (DUMC), Hasan Ali (left), the state executive councillor in charge of Islamic affairs, defended the religious officials, the regrets expressed by the menteri besar notwithstanding.
Culture of impunity
Hasan’s defiance begs a very valid question: does the Pakatan Rakyat government, too, succumb to the culture of impunity which allows for its members to pursue personal aims at the expense of collective responsibility?
It is insufficient for Khalid Samad to refute Hasan by reiterating PAS’ overall position of tolerance and respect, or for Lim Kit Siang to chastise the maverick state executive councilor for not being a team player.
Sir William Ivor Jennings, a former vice-chancellor of Cambridge University and an authority on constitutional law, argues in his book Cabinet Government that ‘a minister who is not prepared to defend a cabinet decision must, therefore, resign’.
If what Hasan has been doing - from his preference for a blanket ban on alcoholic drinks to the current church raid issue - clearly violates his party’s stand, the Selangor PAS leadership or the menteri besar must remove him from government. Freed from collective responsibility, Hasan can then continue to defend to his heart’s content whatever action taken by Jais against Muslims or non-Muslims.
I understand from Khalid the menteri besar and Khalid the PAS liberal that what happened to the DUMC is not acceptable, and I shall await further action by the state government over the raid and, of course, over Hasan as well.
To paraphrase Lord Melbourne: Is it better for the Pakatan government to make religious policy clearer, or vaguer, or to make it more rational? I don’t care. But they had better all tell the same story. Period.
JOSH HONG studied politics at London Metropolitan University and the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. A keen watcher of domestic and international politics, he longs for a day when Malaysians will learn and master the art of self-mockery, and enjoy life to the full in spite of politicians.
View Comments0