Nominated assemblymen rob voters of democratic power

 History teaches that provisions – such as those introduced in Johor and Melaka to allow for nominated assemblymen - almost always degenerate into a system of political patronage and quietly shift power from the electorate to the executive.

A striking pattern I have observed in Malaysians is that they react strongly to the mistreatment of cats or dogs, and protest loudly over even minor issues tied to religion or race, yet often overlook deeper structural issues that shape their future and that of their descendants.

The latest such matter is the move by the governments of Melaka and Johor to change the state constitutions to allow nominated representatives to sit in the state legislative assembly.

Most Malaysians would have been unaware of the changes to the Melaka constitution if not for DAP assemblymen resigning from the state executive council in protest.

Their action also threw the spotlight on the earlier move by the Johor government to introduce nominated assemblymen.

The moves elicited protest or caution statements from a few legal minds and rights groups but there was no public outcry.

The larger public either does not understand the ramifications or is not bothered. I don’t know if this is a failure of voters or the success of a political strategy refined over decades.

The politicians in Johor and Melaka tell us, with practiced earnestness, that amending state constitutions to allow handpicked representatives is all about bringing in “technocratic talent,” giving a voice to underrepresented minorities, and raising the level of debate.

It is a lovely narrative. But for anyone who has watched Malaysian politics long enough, the alarm bells should be ringing loud and clear.

Before I delve into that, let’s be clear that Johor and Melaka have not set a precedent; they are merely following what several other states have already done.

In 1963, when Sabah entered Malaysia, its own constitution already carried up to six nominated members appointed by the Yang di-Pertua Negeri. In 2003, Terengganu allowed up to four persons to be nominated assemblymen but they must be non-Muslim or female members.

In 2020, Pahang amended its constitution to add up to five nominated members. On May 7 this year, Johor added five more assembly seats to bring the total to 61. On July 14, Melaka added up to seven nominated members to its state assembly. It currently has 28.

Melaka Chief Minister Ab Rauf Yusoh said the amendment allowed the appointment of individuals with expertise and experience in fields such as law, economics, education, and technology to contribute directly to policymaking and legislative debates.

“The appointments can enhance the participation of women, youth, the Orang Asli, minority communities, professionals and industry representatives who may not succeed through the electoral process but can contribute meaningfully to the state’s development,” he added.

The main argument championed by Ab Rauf, Johor Menteri Besar Onn Hafiz Ghazi and other proponents is that elections do not always yield experts in economics, technology, or constitutional law. Therefore, the government must step in to appoint them for the greater good of the state.

Opponents to the move say that if a government genuinely needed technical expertise, it could hire consultants or form advisory panels. You do not need to give unelected “experts” a seat and a vote in the august hall of the state legislature to get good advice.

Even if one agrees that the move to bring technical competence and minority representation into state legislatures is commendable, it is clear that doing so without strict constitutional safeguards risks weakening democratic accountability.

Proponents’ argument suggests that popular elections—those chaotic moments where the ordinary citizen briefly holds a fragment of power—cannot be trusted to produce “experts”.

It also suggests that the voter is a messy, flawed instrument, and that the executive knows best what is good for both the state and the voter.

Melaka opposition leader Dr Mohd Yadzil Yaakub, in supporting the bill, said individuals with expertise and experience could play a role in the legislative process, citing the appointment of members of the Dewan Negara.

But there is a telling difference. Unlike the Federal Parliament – which has a two-house system, the elected Dewan Rakyat and the appointed Dewan Negara – state legislative assemblies are unicameral. There is no second chamber.

Introducing nominated members into a single-house legislature and giving them full voting privileges destroys legislative equality because an appointed member who never faced a single voter gets the exact same vote as an assemblyman elected by 52,151 citizens (Kesidang, Melaka, N.19) or 132,579 voters (Kota Iskandar, Johor, N.49).

Nominated members can vote on crucial supply bills and votes of confidence. In a hung assembly or a state with a razor-thin majority, a government could use appointed members to artificially pad its numbers and stay in power.

Ab Rauf also assured that the Melaka bill was not intended to create a back door to gain political power and position.

But that is exactly what opponents fear. There is no guarantee that it won’t be misused or abused tomorrow, if not today.

History teaches us that such provisions almost always degenerate into a system of political patronage.

It is reasonable to fear that these seats will inevitably become a gilded pension scheme for party hacks, defeated cronies, and sycophants whom the electorate had the good sense to reject at the ballot box.

It is reasonable to fear that what starts off as noble-sounding could quietly shift power from the electorate to the executive.

Introducing nominated assemblymen quietly undermines the very principle that makes representative government legitimate: the direct accountability of the elected to the people.

Over time, this erosion of sovereignty can breed cynicism. When legislators feel their authority can be diluted by appointees who never faced the electorate, they may lose the incentive to serve the people with honesty and foresight.

Or, if they are part of the ruling government, they may feel that as long as they toe the leadership’s line, they will be safe because the appointed assemblymen will toe the line in any vote of confidence. Which means they will likely work for the leader or party, not their constituents.

The quality of elected members may not decline, but the quality of democracy will — a democracy that no longer answers to the ballot box alone.

Also, opposition voices may be marginalised; not because they are weak, but because the game is played by new rules.

And public faith in institutions could erode if citizens begin to see politics as “who appoints whom” rather than “who represents us”. Over time, this could breed even more apathy and lower voter turnout.

The introduction of nominated assemblymen is an encroachment – even a robbery, if you like – of the fundamental idea that, in a democracy, authority belongs to the people.

But there’s no outrage because this is not about cats or dogs or religion. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.