WHY MUST PARLIAMENTARIANS VOTE IN THE HOUSE?

- WONG CHIN HUAT

[THREAD]

( This article was published by Malaysiakini on 27 November, 2020 at https://m.malaysiakini.com/news/552773  )

COMMENT | I am appalled that Malaysia’s strongest ever opposition bench – 108 out of 220 now – failed to vote on Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin’s Budget 2021 yesterday because only 13 MPs stood up to demand a formal vote, termed “division”, less than the threshold of 15.

I am more appalled that some MPs later claimed that they voted “nay” to the budget in the “voice vote”, thinking the public are fools who do not understand that a voice vote is basically a ritual.

The issue is, however, larger than a failing parliamentary opposition leader who has failed to form a shadow cabinet and table a shadow budget because he has been too busy with getting the numbers to become prime minister.

The issue is that a shared cynicism in our political class – on both sides of the divide – that treats Parliament as merely the electoral college of the prime minister and cannot take voting in the House seriously.

*American lawmakers vote even when in agreement*

Our Parliament’s flaw is most obvious when compared with the US Congress.

US vice-president-elect Kamala Harris is a sitting senator before she takes up her new job (and thus, also president of the Senate) on Jan 20, 2021. She was picked by president-elect Joe Biden as his running mate on Aug 11.

Beginning August, she was presumably absent in the Senate most of the time because she had voted only twice, one of which was against Amy Coney Barrett’s justiceship.

In July when the Senate had 25 voting decisions across 11 days, Harris, however, had an active record: “nay” 19, “yea” five and not-voting two.

Am I a fan or a stalker of Harris? No. Her voting record is here on the Senate’s website. You can find voting records for both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

US lawmakers do not vote only when they disagree. They vote also when they agree. Some bills are passed without objection - Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative (Taipei) Act of 2019 was passed with 415 votes for, zero votes against, and 14 not-voting.

US lawmakers even provide explanations for their missed votes. Representative Nick J Rahall II said this after missing three votes in 2011:

“This flight delay prevented me from carrying out my Constitutional duty to represent the people of southern West Virginia. I feel I owe them and this body an explanation about why that was not possible last night.”

Members of the US lower house can even put in the congressional record how they would have voted even though stating their intention does not change the outcome.

Why are US lawmakers so serious about voting, even if their votes do not change the outcomes?

Accountability. US lawmakers want to be accountable as decision-makers, to be a party for an agreeable decision, and to be a party against a disagreeable decision.

They care because their voters care. American politicians get questioned by opponents in elections for the key decisions they missed. If unjustified, they may get punished by voters.

*Why can't lawmakers care less?*

Would Budget 2021 be passed without a division vote on the second reading on Nov 26 if the opposition leaders and parliamentarians knew the backlash they would face?

Clearly no. Anwar told his parliamentary colleagues not to go for a division and those parliamentarians who followed his instructions did so because they did not expect Malaysians to understand and take seriously legislative politics like Americans do. They thought we were dumb.

Parliamentarians, please stop telling us that you voted “nay” with your voice, when voice vote is a ritual for “aye”. When the speaker can judge by the loudness of voice whether the majority goes for “aye” or “nay”, the majority is supposedly a foregone conclusion.

When the majority is in question, a division vote is needed, that’s why your 13 colleagues stood up. If you don’t even understand this voting procedure, please consider retirement after this term.

But what were the motivations that dissuaded Anwar from going for a division?

Anwar told us that he did not want the opposition to be seen as blocking concessions made by Finance Minister Tengku Zafrul Abdul Aziz which benefited frontliners, farmers and fisherfolk.

Let me add another point, the opposition would also be accused of defying the King’s advice. Posters attacking Amanah and Pejuang were out soon after the failed attempt for a division.

However, if Anwar had “the numbers” he has been talking about, would he not go for a division?

Was Anwar also concerned that the opposition’s “no” votes would be less than 108 as one East Malaysian parliamentarian was apparently absent and some others may abstain, hence showing a shrinking number further away from 112?

The budget is both an end in itself and a means to sustain or sack a government.

If Anwar’s primary concern is about breaking Muhyiddin’s government, then it may make some strategic sense to postpone the showdown, perhaps to wait for the Umno defection repetitively promised to and by Anwar to finally happen.

However, allowing the budget to pass at the second reading without any recorded objection means the budget was merely an instrument, and whatever critiques the opposition had made on the budget may be abandoned.

If Anwar and the opposition were serious about fixing the flaws in the budget as much as changing the government, then a vote of division was absolutely necessary.

If the opposition did not want to vote "nay", then they must at least abstain to leave Muhyiddin with only 111 “yes” votes (excluding Umno's Gua Musang MP Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah).

Did the opposition not think through all scenarios? Should one expect Zafrul to not make concessions in his concluding speech? Why wasn’t there coordination?

Why is a 108-member opposition bench in such a mess?

*Why no shadow budget?*

This budget breaks a tradition on the opposition’s side: No shadow budget.

Starting in 2011, Pakatan Rakyat launched a shadow budget for 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015.

This was continued by Pakatan Harapan for 2016, 2017 and 2018. This was even continued by BN through Rembau MP Khairy Jamaluddin in 2019 but stopped for this year.

Had there been a well-planned shadow budget, would it be difficult for Harapan to vote down Muhyiddin’s budget without the accusation of sabotage?

And if Pakatan Rakyat and Harapan could produce shadow budgets for seven consecutive years before coming into power, why did it fail to produce one for 2020 after 22 months in government?

The shadow budget 2020 could have been rigorously produced by the Harapan/Harapan Plus shadow cabinet, regrouping its former frontbenchers and talents.

This did not happen because Anwar – earlier former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad and former Sabah chief minister Shafie Apdal too – is too busy getting the “numbers” to form a new government.

Having a shadow cabinet inconveniences the courting of government MPs because the prime minister wannabe cannot promise the stars and moon to the future lineup.