Again, there has been much discussion of late about party-hopping in Sabah.
In fact, Sabah has regularly been the focus of such discussions due to the penchant of its assemblymen to hop from one party to another. This is understandable given that its electorate has changed the government at least five times.
Primarily, debates on the subject tend to revolve around the need for anti-hopping legislation. While this may provide some deterrence, it is by no means a “be-all and end-all” solution.
In the Sabah context, the issue of party-hopping is already ingrained and has become part of the political culture of the state.
Recently, two assemblymen ditched the PH-Warisan-Upko coalition and became PN-friendly, citing the “development needs” of their electorate as their justification. The argument is that development is only possible if a good working relationship exists with the ruling federal government.
Questions:
Why are the federal government apparatuses not available to opposition-held constituencies in the state?
Why must an opposition assemblyman first subscribe to the ruling federal government’s partisan stance before his constituency can benefit from development funds?
It may well be that the system needs to be changed to discourage unfair distribution of funds. To disincentivise an assemblyman from ditching his party, a mechanism must be put in place to ensure that such aid is distributed fairly based on the needs of the electorate.
An assemblyman who thinks he is being discriminated against must be allowed to lodge a complaint to an independent grant commission charged with facilitating inter-governmental cooperation and distribution of development funds. This is something that should be looked into before any anti-hopping law is enacted.
However, the “development fund” argument may just be cover for an assemblymen’s greed and his craving for power. If so, the solution to party-hopping lies in a cultural shift led by a new generation of leaders.
At the heart of the “culture” argument is the fact that Sabah politics is personality driven. Political parties are formed by leading figures and disbanded – some abruptly – after these leaders are no longer active in politics.
So, instead of committing to a party’s vision and ideals, followers are loyal to their leaders, especially while they are in power. Once the incentive to seek patronage support diminishes, the party will be dissolved, and their leaders and followers will either form a new party or join an existing one.
To create a new political culture, one must start with education. The party itself has an important role to play in educating its members in politics, policy-making and the importance of voting conscientiously.
Schools and universities play a vital role as well. The existing syllabi must be revamped to take into account the dynamics of politics in this changing era. Before young voters are empowered to exercise their democratic rights, they must first be provided with the tools necessary to make informed choices.
Only the young leaders of today can change Malaysia’s political culture. Our electorate yearns for progressive and transparent leadership. Young leaders must avoid the mistakes of their predecessors and instead introduce a new brand of politics based on principles, pragmatism and progressivism.
Addressing the scourge of party-hopping requires more than enacting a law. While the present institutions and laws can be strengthened to check the improper conduct of politicians, party-hopping can only be stopped by promoting a new political culture grounded in professionalism, ethics and accountability.
Arnold Puyok is a senior lecturer in Politics and Government Studies at the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
Fake or not? Check our quick fake news buster here.