Barisan Nasional (BN) MPs supporting vote on an opposition motion is not merely confined to loyalty or party discipline but whether the national integrity policy has been compromised.

The alleged misconduct of Jasin MP Mohd Said Yusof 'exposed' in Parliament last week and the hasty exit by Johor Baru MP Shahrir Abdul Samad as Back Benchers Club chairperson has sparked off a raging debate.

Malaysiakini records a mixed reaction to whether BN parliamentarians should vote along party lines - and not on conscience - as the BN's policy was reiterated Monday by BN chairperson and Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Transparency International Malaysia (TIM) president Ramon Navaratnam:

Good conscience and integrity are interlinked, and Islam Hadhari reaffirms the fact that you cannot have one without the other.

Your conscience must be transparent and therefore, it's important that your conscience reflects integrity. You cannot have a good conscience unless you have integrity.

The over-riding consideration in all matters of judgment and decision-making is integrity as it covers honesty, loyalty, best practices and the duty to serve the public with morality and religion as guidelines.

Any other consideration can be regarded as violating the principles of good governance.

TI appeals to the PM to clear the air on this matter in a transparent way, otherwise it gets all hazy. His statement could be construed as a conflict of ideals which will cause confusion.

As a former civil servant, I can imagine the confusion that will lead to the creation of 'war' and Napoleons not just within the civil service, but also within the political system.

I can understand the need to have the Whip for political purposes and party discipline but the over-riding consideration should still be integrity.

The whip should be cracked to uphold integrity and good governance, and relaxed in cases where it is not vital to party discipline and political governance.

MPs should not be denied their freedom to exercise good judgment and conscience. Otherwise, these representatives of the rakyat would feel constrained and muzzled.

Greater discretion must be exercised in cracking the whip or it would throw MPs into a dilemma between their conscience and loyalty to the party.

People must exercise conscience or risk inhibiting progress and independent thinking especially at this stage of Malaysia's economic growth.

Malaysian Institute of Corporate Governance president Megat Najmuddin Megat Khas:

You cannot equate conscience with integrity. Our conscience differs from one another. For example, the conscience of a PAS member would not be the same as a DAP member because the former's basis is religious.

There's no way they (BN MPs) can vote on conscience. They have to toe the line. We are a parliamentary democracy, so you're not exactly free to do anything you like especially in a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious country.

(Abdullah) knows what he's talking about (but) he probably owes the public an explanation particularly since he is the main driver of integrity in the country.

I think the press should ask him the right question so that he can explain what he meant by telling BN MPs to toe the line.

But there are procedures where you can vote on conscience if the party Whip allows for it. If the backbenchers feel strongly about something, they can go through the procedures and approach the Whip to discuss it.

But there must be party discipline otherwise it will be inviting chaos in Parliament but if it's a question of integrity, then voting on conscience should be allowed.

Former TIM president and distinguished lawyer Param Cumaraswamy:

Firstly, a police report or complaint should have been lodged with the Anti-Corruption Agency on the MP's alleged misconduct.

And in the absence of a code of conduct for MPs, such matters should be dealt with by an external mechanism and investigated under the country's laws like any ordinary allegation.

(Parliamentary Opposition Leader) Lim Kit Siang should not have raised the matter in Parliament. He could have easily lodged a report with the ACA and raised it later.

If I were Shahrir, I wouldn't have immediately supported the motion given that it's an allegation of misconduct committed outside Parliament.

The Rights and Privileges Committee only governs conduct in Parliament such as language, fist-fights or something which demands that authority and integrity is upheld, or issues that affects the stature of MPs.

As MPs are given absolute immunity and cannot be prosecuted by an outside mechanism for misconduct in Parliament, the committee functions to prevent any abuse of that privilege.

When it concerns (mis)conduct outside Parliament, an MP should be treated as an ordinary person without the privileges. He (or she) must be probed by the competent authorities.

On the other hand, if there is a code of conduct for MPs governing behaviour outside Parliament, then the matter can be considered by a special court or body such as an ombudsman.

The MP can be charged in this special court for any breach of the code which could include corrupt practices.