Malaysia needs broad-based policymaking to beat pandemic and save livelihoods

The general election losers are now ruling the country

Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia (GBM) calls for the broadening of the political base for government policies to be competent, comprehensive and coherent to beat the Covid pandemic and save the livelihoods of Malaysians.

This is best achieved by a confidence-and-supply agreement between the government and opposition parties to effect a political ceasefire and restore political stability.

Instead of overcoming the political crisis since February 2020, the emergency has severely weakened Malaysia’s response to the pandemic in two ways.

First, the questionable majority of the government preserved by the emergency has resulted in insular and narrow-based policymaking, marked by blind spots, incoordination and disconnect from the public.

Second, the suspension of parliamentary oversight has worsened the “dua darjat” (double standards) phenomenon – double standards in law enforcement and queue-jumping in vaccination – and fuelled public discontentment, giving rise to a suspicion of corruption when the government seems underperforming and incapable of solving many issues relating to the national immunisation programme, since the programme started more than three months ago.

GBM calls upon the government and opposition parties to express their willingness to enter a confidence-and-supply agreement that

  • paves way for broad-based policymaking and parliamentary oversight through a reopened and empowered Parliament with every ministry scrutinised by a parliamentary select committee and every opposition MP and government backbencher sitting on at least one such committee
  • ensures political stability for an extended period before a pre-agreed date for the next general election so that all parties and MPs can concentrate on policies instead of electioneering
  • ensures equitable treatment of all MPs in committee appointments and allocations of constituency funds and [protection] from selective prosecution.
READ MORE:  Unprecedented scenes in Parliament – and PM just walks away

GBM finds the idea of unity government both inviable and undesirable. Extensive reshuffling of the cabinet and inter-party negotiations for ministerial portfolios will probably cause more inter-party and inter-personal power struggles than reducing them, hence causing more disunity. And in the unlikely event of success, an all-party unity government also means no opposition and weaker parliamentary oversight.

GBM opposes the idea of a national operations council, which will further narrow instead of broaden the political base of policymaking. An unelected body – consisting of one or a few politicians with the heads of the civil service, military and police  – has no democratic legitimacy. Any misstep by such a council may trigger a colossal public backlash that erodes the legitimacy of the bureaucracy, security forces and even the constitutional monarchy.

Badlishah Sham Baharin is chairman of Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia (GBM). This piece was released for and on behalf of the GBM executive council

Thanks for dropping by! The views expressed in Aliran's media statements and the NGO statements we have endorsed reflect Aliran's official stand. Views and opinions expressed in other pieces published here do not necessarily reflect Aliran's official position.

Our voluntary writers work hard to keep these articles free for all to read. But we do need funds to support our struggle for Justice, Freedom and Solidarity. To maintain our editorial independence, we do not carry any advertisements; nor do we accept funding from dubious sources. If everyone reading this was to make a donation, our fundraising target for the year would be achieved within a week. So please consider making a donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara, CIMB Bank account number 8004240948.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hakimi Abdul Jabar
24 Jun 2021 8.20pm

There is NO definition for the so-called “Murka” & “Derhaka” under the Federal Constitution nor specifically under Art. 160(2). Neither are definitions found in the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 (Akta Tafsiran 1948 & 1967) which were enacted to provide for the commencement, application, construction, interpretation and operation of written laws; to provide for matters in relation to the exercise of statutory powers and duties; and for matters connected therewith.

Don’t bother with nothing-ness & trivialities!