|
©The
Nut Graph (Used by permission)
by Wong Chin Huat
SINCE the 8 March elections, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been dubbed a prime
minister-in-waiting by many. This never happened with Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah,
Lim Kit Siang, Datuk Fadzil Noor, Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang, or Datin Seri Dr
Wan Azizah. Such recognition shows how far Malaysia has come in readying for an
end to Umno's 53-year rule.
However, if Anwar is a prime minister-in-waiting, where are his
ministers-in-waiting? He can't rule the country by himself, right? He needs not
only the numbers to form a sustainable parliamentary majority, but also a
quality team to form a competent cabinet.
No one is suggesting that the Pakatan Rakyat lacks old hands and young blood who
can do a better ministerial job than their Barisan Nasional (BN) counterparts.
The question is, who, and for which ministry?
Mismatch of talents can cause havoc, and Malaysians deserve to know that this
will not happen. Appointing shadow ministers will in fact provide potential
future ministers with on-the-job training before they actually take over.
An announcement of a shadow cabinet line-up is therefore the most basic thing to
do for the sake of competence, accountability and transparency.
So why is there no shadow cabinet nearly nine months after the elections? Will
there be one before the next elections, after which Malaysia may actually see a
new government? If yes, why can't we just have it now?
The case for a shadow cabinet
A shadow cabinet is a common feature in mature parliamentary democracies. It
exists because, in theory, a government can easily collapse by losing the
confidence of Parliament.
So, if any new government is to be installed immediately without having fresh
polls, it is only responsible of and reasonable for any party intending to
replace the existing government to prepare its lineup.
Now, isn't replacing the existing government what the Pakatan Rakyat has focused
its energies on in the past nine months?
There are many good reasons why building a shadow cabinet — which has never
happened in Malaysia at the federal level — is important for both the opposition
coalition and the nation.
Firstly, it results in division of labour and specialisation. For many years,
Malaysia's parliamentary opposition leaders acted as if they were all-rounders
who knew about each and every ministry while none of their colleagues knew
authoritatively about any.
While the age of a one-person shadow cabinet is gone, it is not enough to have
several opposition parliamentarians who are able to speak on many things. They
need to speak well, on behalf of their coalition, on only one thing each.
Specialisation will make them do a better job, both as watchdogs and as
alternatives to the ministers they shadow.
Secondly, based on the principle of collective responsibility, a shadow cabinet
helps build a cohesive coalition. After all, you can only have one policy on one
matter or issue. This will force the different opposition parties to settle for
minimum common denominators when spelling out the practical details of policies,
instead of emphasising differences through abstract ideological principles and
dogmas.
What does this mean for citizens, businesses, and foreign players? Well, you'd
be able to know which politician from which party will handle which ministry on
what position. Whether or not you like the portfolio holders, it reduces
uncertainty. In other words, the opposition's preparation to rule increases
political stability. Isn't this of utmost importance in present trying
circumstances?
Thirdly, while this may not bode well in relaxing the overcentralised federation
in the future, a shadow cabinet can be the Pakatan Rakyat's tool at this stage
to coordinate the five state governments.
A Pakatan Rakyat federal government would need to deal with conflicts of
interest between, for example, Kedah and Penang, or to synchronise policies on
land titles or freedom of information. Similarly, a Pakatan Rakyat shadow
cabinet can start doing this now. As the Pakatan Rakyat state governments are
currently heading in increasingly different directions, the need for a shadow
cabinet to function as a forum to sort out interparty and interstate conflicts
is greater than ever. No irregular powwows of chief ministers or lawmakers can
fill that void.
Fourthly, a shadow cabinet creates a career path within the opposition
parliamentary contingent. Opposition frontbenchers must be separate from
opposition backbenchers like leagues A and B in sports or the main board and
second board in share markets.
In other words, frontbench positions must be the prizes sought, with real
prospects to become ministers in the event of governmental change. This may in
fact strengthen the Pakatan Rakyat — the shadow ministers would need to persuade
their party colleagues to support the coalition's common positions. Otherwise
they would have to resign, or the coalition has to collapse.
Meanwhile, opposition backbenchers would need to learn their roles in both
supporting their frontbenchers and competing with them in the hope of replacing
them in the future. A shadow administration must therefore not include every
opposition parliamentarian, despite strong temptation to appease factions and
individuals.
Currently, it has been claimed that the three Pakatan Rakyat component parties
have assigned their parliamentarians to oversee one or more ministries. Hence
there are three "shadow ministers" for each ministry, with no opposition
parliamentarians left over as backbenchers. This is lame and mocks the idea of a
shadow cabinet. A working shadow cabinet must facilitate competition between the
government and opposition, and within the opposition.
What's holding Anwar back?
It is unlikely that Anwar, his advisors or aides do not know the benefits of a
shadow cabinet. But he could be held back by two considerations: the need to
bait defectors, and the worry of interethnic and interparty backlash.
The first concern, if it indeed exists, is flawed. Like cabinets, shadow
cabinets can be reshuffled from time to time. True, not forming a shadow cabinet
may prevent the possible defectors from feeling that all positions have already
been taken. But it may also prevent potential defectors from imagining their
places in the shadow minister line-up. In other words, a shadow cabinet may help
persuade the opportunists that the game is real and they must act fast.
In contrast, the second concern appears to be real. There are potential shadow
ministers who could be appointed based on competence, such as Tony Pua (DAP–Petaling
Jaya Utara), one of the main persons behind the shadow budget, as shadow second
finance minister; and R Sivarasa (Parti Keadilan Rakyat–Subang) as shadow law
minister. However, these appointments may invite attacks from Umno or even from
PAS.
On the other hand, allocating portfolios on pure ethnic and party quotas would
make the Pakatan Rakyat a mere BN lookalike.
Anwar will face attacks from at least one side, if not both, for not doing
enough either way. This may even trigger power struggles within the Pakatan
Rakyat component parties.
Party alternation or regime change?
If this is the case, why should Anwar court trouble now? Doesn't the saying go,
"Don't trouble trouble until trouble troubles you"?
The answer is simple: Anwar cannot be a good prime minister-in-waiting without
having good ministers-in-waiting. How long can he run away from the task? If he
cannot present an alternative team to run the country before the next elections,
can we really trust him to lead the country? By the way, the DAP predicts that
elections will be called within a year after Datuk Seri Najib Razak's succession
as prime minister.
Trapped in the idiom of Umno's wayang kulit politics, many Malaysians believe
political change is all about schemes, conspiracies, and behind-the-scenes
negotiation; change has no room for upholding democratic norms.
This is plain wrong. You can bring "change of government" — like dynastic
changes in Chinese and European empires — through political deals in
smoke-filled rooms, or shows of strengths in the barracks or the streets. But
you can't bring "party alternation" — what "two-coalition politics" is really
about — and genuine democratisation along with that. By definition, democracy is
so public that it cannot be delivered through private dealings.
So why should we tell Anwar to deliver Malaysians his shadow cabinet before any
more calendar games? To borrow from an advertisement for cosmetics: "Because
we're worth it."
A political scientist by training and a journalism lecturer by trade, Wong
Chin Huat uses the Federal Constitution as his "bible" to fend off the
increasingly intolerable evil called "state".
|
This argued need for a Shadow Cabinet presupposes the consensus and constructive engagements between the ruling and Opposition parties that exist in the Westminster model. To be sure, sometimes this consensus collapses, but such collapses confirm such a consensus.
There is also the little-spoken convention of a six-month handing-over period when governments change. This was never used in the Malaysian model because the ruling coalition has always ruled at the Federal level since Independence in 1957.
Looking at how some of the State governments were handed over, I do not think such a consensus exists in Malaysia. Just look at how our recent history has shown how the draconian Internal Security Act has been misused to put the Opposition and Non-Governmental Organisations in place.
We Malaysians are not even sure how the next general election will be conducted. Lest we forget, as we are so prone, that March 8, 2008, occurred in a “relatively free and fair” manner is a solid credit to the sense of fairness of Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, our outgoing Prime Minister.
Stephen Tan Ban Cheng