Beware Harapan's quest for a supermajority

A mere six months or so after Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the former premier generally thought of as weak, meekly handed over the reins to Najib Abdul Razak, Malaysia's DNA began to morph, marking the beginning of the country's degeneration into a full-blown kleptocracy. 

Malaysia changed from what academic William Case called an "old pseudo-democracy" to what DAP veteran Lim Kit Siang called a "kakistocracy," ruled by the worst leaders and MPs.

At a time when the country is starting to become wary of the virtues of globalisation – exalted during the end of the Cold War with the promise to raise the welfare of all humanity – one should exercise equal caution about things that are too good to be true, like the mass defection of Umno leaders to Pakatan Harapan. 

On the surface at least, the exodus of Umno leaders into Harapan seems like a good thing. With a two-thirds majority in Parliament, Harapan can, for instance, correct the heavily gerrymandered electoral boundaries before 2026.

But one should also be worried about the coalition's tendency to cave in to extremists at the fringe. In recent months, there have been three issues where the political masters seemed to not be able to control these extremists. None of these issues really had anything to do with religion, race and royalty. 

In other words, even if Harapan has a two-thirds majority in Parliament, there will be extremists to manipulate the issues of the day.

The first was the Seafield temple riots. Initially, it seemed to be the result of two ethnic groups clashing with one another, yet the underlying issue turned out to be a land dispute, pure and simple.

When it happened, the political masters fell on their worst instincts and took the safest route – lifting the moratorium on the Sedition Act 1948 and other security laws – even though Harapan's 14th general election manifesto was about removing such laws. 

One black swan event in Subang Jaya, that seemingly came out of nowhere, was enough to neuter the effects of May 9. Sad.

Second, despite the government's decision not to proceed with the ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Icerd) – contrary to what Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah had earlier articulated – the PAS and Umno-backed December 8th rally proceeded anyway.

Although roughly 55,000 people showed up, the effect was enough to neutralise the decision of the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) – the statutory human rights body formed at the tail end of Dr Mahathir Mohamad's first tenure – to hold an event on the same day. 

Third, a transwoman was killed with "a blunt object" in Klang on Dec 13. Other than a brief mention in one news portal, almost no MPs spoke out against what was surely a hate crime. Instead, the issue was dismissed as being the result of petty theft. Why would this be enough to warrant being bludgeoned to death?

How can Malaysia be a healthy democracy when there is tyranny of the majority over the minority?

The quest for two-thirds

At the rate at which Harapan appears to be accepting – perhaps wait-listing for the time being – many tainted MPs, state assemblypersons and senators from Umno, Malaysia seems to be racing ahead to have the first supermajority in Parliament since 2008.

If this two-thirds majority allows the Election Commission to do its job and reshuffle the constituencies to reflect the multiracial landscape of the country, then this article has nothing of value to add, whether morally, intellectually or strategically. After all, a fair and multiracial Malaysia would make it a beacon of light to all democracies in the world.

But if this quest for a supermajority is pursued purely for its own sake, then the welfare and future of Malaysia would be in a state of peril between now and 2023.

When the Parliament has no checks and balances – as there wasn't between 2003-2008 under Abdullah – the government is at risk of falling, face down. It even sowed the seeds of its own destruction, when the people rose up to challenge his lacklustre administration. 

A vigorous government can only come from well-balanced authority and a decently-sized opposition. If this opposition is sliced thinly like a salami, then May 9 would be little more than a prelude to what academics like AC Grayling and Joshua Kurlantzick term "soft dictatorship."

Grayling warned that democracies "resort to half-truths and dirty tricks" to sell various public policy programmes to its electorate. When democracies lose checks and balances, the writing is already on the wall, even before the people can enjoy their freedoms.

Kurtlanzick's Democracy in Retreat also warns that democracies can and do retreat, and that this may not be due to external aberrations. 

When a democracy is too big and too proud to fail, that is when it begins to rot from the inside. Be warned.

---

PHAR KIM BENG is a multiple award-winning head teaching fellow on China and the Cultural Revolution at Harvard University. -Mkini