Maybe Malaysia should switch to a presidential system

It's quite clear that politicians can’t be trusted to stop trying to topple each other for five years and just focus on working for the public.

Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s stop-gap solution is to introduce a law for a fixed-term government, disguised as a Fixed-Term Parliament Act (FTPA).

While an FTPA to spare Malaysians from snap elections is welcome, rigging Parliament so that a government remains in power sounds very undemocratic.

What if one party in a coalition has gone rogue and become evil incarnate? Are the other coalition members expected to just keep going with it?

Even if they oust the prime minister through a vote of confidence, what guarantee is there that such a coalition can remain viable, or that a new prime minister from the same party can be trusted to be a good egg?

The simplest solution towards party hopping, of course, is to switch to a party-list system whereby voters vote for a party instead of individuals.

If an individual changes party - or dies - they will simply be replaced by the next person on the party list.

No need for by-elections and no danger of party-hopping destabilising the government.

However, Putrajaya does not appear to have any interest in this or a proportional representative system, despite it being recommended by the previous Electoral Reform Committee.

So, why not suggest something very different like a presidential system?

Minimal changes needed

Such a system can be slotted into our system without disrupting the structures of power, with a president reporting to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong just as a prime minister does, and with Parliament keeping the executive in check.

It also won’t be difficult for voters to adapt to, as our elections and voting habits are often driven by prime minister candidates.

The only suggested difference from our current system is to require that a winner gets more than 50 percent of votes, meaning a second round of voting or a transfer of votes would be required to ensure that the will of the majority is respected.

Once elected, a president can then form a cabinet by going through the usual procedure of having them sworn in before the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, and then go about their business.

Separating the executive from the legislature would also ensure that any shenanigans by MPs would not result in a government being overthrown.

So, there would be no need to legislate an FTPA to install a fixed-term government.

Instead, fixed-term laws can be introduced to simply ensure that elections follow a set schedule so that there’s no anxiety or uncertainty about when an election will be held.

Sure, a Dewan Rakyat controlled by parties not aligned to a president can be a major obstacle in passing bills but let’s hope this forces both into striking consensus, with Parliament serving as a true check and balance on the executive.

If a president turns out to be a corrupt person, then Parliament can initiate impeachment proceedings to remove the president from office.

This proposal may sound like a far-fetched idea, and it is.

But in a country where even the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is also elected - albeit by fellow monarchs and with a loose agreement to follow a cycle - would a president separate from Parliament really be that out of place? - Mkini

---

ZIKRI KAMARULZAMAN is a member of the Malaysiakini team.