In saying that members in BN are required to be "yes-men" to whatever policy and decision made by the top leaders (DAP: 'Yes-men' syndrome showing in BN action against Penang reps), Teresa Kok (DAP-Seputeh) (a woman MP) of course forgot to include "yes-women", since there are several BN women members of Parliament as well.

But men or women alike, anyone interested in representative democracy and in public policy cannot help but be concerned about the hullabaloo in using the BN's party whip to take action against Tan Cheng Liang (Jawi) and Lim Boo Chang (Datuk Keramat) for not opposing the DAP's motion in the Penang State Asssembly sitting on Nov 21 to defer the Penang Outer Ring Road Project (Porr) until the Jelutong Expressway was completed (Sunday Star, Nov 24).

It should not be forgotten that in the ideal form, representative democracy connotes "government of the people, by the people and for the people" in the hallowed words of Abraham Lincoln, which is evinced and delivered by the people's votes.

A vote is a formal expression of a wish, will or choice. The people vote into parliamentary and state assemblies their representatives who in turn vote for or against motions according to their constituencies' wishes and enact laws in custodian of the people's interest.

So ultimately it is the people's wish or the perception of that which counts and if the two intrepid 'renegade' representatives were to vote according to their conscience that the people of Penang would like Porr to be deferred, they are okay by my books.

But alas the ideal is not always the practice, whether here or elsewhere, but even if this were conceded, the practice should not deviate so much from the ideal form that the ideal is only but a shadow or a whisper.

Surely, anyone concerned with the practice of parliamentary democracy and the voice of the people will find something terribly amiss with this concept of party discipline to toe party line enforced indiscriminately by party whip when sometimes party line is the line dictated by party leaders as influenced by their personal idiosyncrasies or the idiosyncrasies of their advisors, lobbyist and cronies, who more often than not are interested in their private rather than public interests?

Surely again, we cannot have a situation where politicians plead, cajole, bribe, seduce and garner popular votes to install not a "government of the people, by the people and for the people" (as intended by the vote) but a "government of the party leaders, by the party leaders and for the party leaders and their cadres". If this be the case at least be honest about it and call the system an autocracy rather than a democracy: at least we can all adjust our expectations accordingly downwards.

The whip and party discipline is better used for other purposes such as ensuring sufficient attendance of party MPs in parliamentary or state assembly sittings or to prevent the malaise of 'money politics', etc.

Essential to the use of the whip is the ability to flex party discipline and mete out punishment commensurate or proportionate to the nature of party offence and indiscipline committed. It should most sparingly be considered, much less enforced, when the nature of the 'indiscipline' is one inspired by conscience of not supporting the official party line perceived to be contrary to or in conflict with public and the people's interest!

More important in the judicious use of the whip to punish members who don't toe the line is that it must be perceived as not being used inconsistently and selectively by party leaders.

For our atavistic sense of fairness and justice and revulsion for their opposite will not take kindly to such inconsistent and selective disciplinary actions and punishment.

In this connection, I am obliged to point out that when BN top officials now threaten to take disciplinary action against Tan Cheng Liang and Lim Boo Chang for not voting against the DAP's motion on Porr, they did not raise this equivalent of hue and cry and call for action to be taken against four of their assemblymen in the Terengganu state assembly sitting when contrary to the party line, they abstained and did not vote against Terengganu Menteri Besar Hadi (PAS)' motion to pass about Syariah Criminal Offences (hudud and qisas) Enactment!

Based on this precedent, Tan Cheng Liang and Lim Boo Chang, whose offence of abstaining and not voting against the opposition's motion was similar to and not more grave as BN assemblymen's for the latter was an issue involving the whole fabric of the nation and not just Penang should be accorded the same treatment of light reprimand, if not private praise.

If MCA is worth its salt, it will want to know why, and by what differentiating criteria, its two 'errant' assembly reps in Penang ought to be treated differently in terms of breach of party discipline on issues of conscience from their Umno counterparts in Terengganu, who more or less did the same thing in respect of a more serious and graver national issue.