Moral Dilemma Of Cross Overs 16092008

The Malaysian Bar - Comment: The moral dilemma of political crossovers

1 of 3

http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/opinions/comments/comment_the_moral...

FRIDAY 1 9 SE P , 0 8

search

Facilitating the acquisition of legal knowledge by members of the legal profession and others Home Home

About Us News

Directories

Opinions/Comments

News/Articles

Laws

Resource Centre

Links

FAQs

Related Bodies

Search

Contact Us

Comment: The moral dilemma of political crossovers Forum

Photos

Jobs

Polls

Shop

Law Firms

Public Awareness

Having difficulty in finding a lawyer? Need to find a lawyer to represent you? Just click on the link for the law firms' advertisements.

Comment: The moral dilemma of political crossovers Hi, nizam98

Contributed by Yeo Yang Poh

To change your username and password, please click below: Update Details

T u es d ay, 1 6 S ep t emb er 2 0 0 8 0 8 :3 7 am

As the law stands today, there is no legal impediment to elected members of parliament crossing over to a different political party or platform. Attention is therefore switched to whether or not crossovers are morally permissible.

Free MP Teresa Kok Parliamentary Caucus

such

There are those who oppose crossovers simply because of their unspoken fear of losing power, or that of a change in government. The worst kind are those who had in the past explicitly or implicitly supported previous crossovers when it suited them. But there are also those, among whom many good people, who argue on ground of principle that political crossovers lack moral fibre. It is with these people that I wish to engage. The ethical objection to crossovers may be expressed as follows. Since a parliamentarian had been elected, by a majority of his constituents, on a particular political ticket or platform; it is logical to suggest that those who had elected him, or at least some of them, might not have voted for him if he was contesting under a different ticket (such as that of the party to which he now wishes to cross). Hence, his mandate from the people might become questionable if he were to switch camp now. In short, we could never know for sure whether or not his original mandate would be renewed if, say, we were to have a re-election now with him standing on his new ticket. This is essentially why crossovers are thought to be morally objectionable, even for some who consider the likely consequences of such crossovers in our circumstances to be positive and beneficial to the people as a whole. Abdullah rejects calls for Parliament to convene special session The moral dilemma involved is a real and difficult one. The solution to this dilemma, as I will propose in this article, cannot be correctly reached by merely pursuing a single straight-path approach, as has been done by some. This requires some explanation. When considering controversial moral issues, it is sometimes easy, or even tempting, to overlook one or more of the following factors: (a) That only very few ethical principles are absolute in nature. Most of them have exceptions. For instance, even killing can be morally justified if it is committed out of genuine self-defence. (b) That many moral standards are not static. They evolve and change through time. It may, for example, be difficult for us to see autocratic rule as anything other than immoral, but at one time (and for a long period in world history) it was indeed not seen as immoral.

Anwar asks for special parliament session Cabinet gives nod to race relations act Anwar wants Parliament to meet by Sept 23 Oct 31 decides whether to call for defence in Altantuya murder case Zaid rejects talk of leaving Umno Zaid attends Pakatan meeting and reaffirms anti-ISA stand Work of a spurned lover? Relatives of slain teen lament loss, call for abductors to be punished DAP: We prefer elections to defections Caucus formed to seek release Sept 23 hearing for Kok

(c) That much of moral right or wrong is relative to both time and circumstances.

Two bills on crime prevention to be tabled ACA probes bribery claims

(d) That when judging the morality of an act, its consequences frequently have to be weighed against the consequence of its omission, and vice versa.

Zaid wants to remain as Senator

(e) That moral wrongs do come in different sizes. There are bigger wrongs and smaller wrongs. For example, rape is certainly far more deplorable than badmouthing someone, although both acts involve the violation of another person. This element becomes particularly important when there exist competing ethical considerations respecting the commission of an act as compared with its omission.

Uthayakumar's habeas corpus application dismissed

SAPP's Press Statement that it is no longer a member of the Barisan Nasional Lawyer claims trial to bribery charge Opinion: Federal-state relations plagued by imbalances 'The right thing to do' NBA president says he did not mean to belittle judiciary

(f) That morality should not be considered in a vacuum or in abstract, but in the situational context of the relevant act. Few situations consist of just one single moral issue that is relevant. More often than not, there is a basket of multiple moral issues, some of them competing with one another, that needs to be weighed in together. A clear example would be when a group of armed men is pursuing a pregnant lady and they stop to ask an honest farmer in which direction that lady had run, and the farmer deliberately points to the opposite direction, believing that those men intend her harm. Surely in that situation no one should criticise the farmer as immoral for having lied, even if his suspicion of the motive of the armed men turns out to be misplaced. (g) That the true purpose of a consideration of personal and interpersonal morality issues is not to determine or illustrate who is (or can be) holier than thou, but to suggest and guide people’s actions with the view to fostering a better society. Thus, a functional assessment of the moral value (or turpitude) of a particular act cannot be divorced from an examination of its possible impact on

Worried, AIG Customers in Singapore Cash Out Law Society to tackle top law firm Man accused of being fake lawyer won't defend self Legal crackdown on 'suicide websites' Scalia Says U of C Law School Has Lost its Conservative Edge In praise of perversion Rape myths: why we still believe women ‘ask for it’ Stop making a mockery of rule of law: Let's accept gays China lawyers call for more open bar association Minister: Study proposal on switch to Syariah law thoroughly (69 comments)

9/19/2008 12:41 AM

The Malaysian Bar - Comment: The moral dilemma of political crossovers

2 of 3

http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/opinions/comments/comment_the_moral...

society, in both the long and short terms.

Siri Pemikiran Kritis (Segmen Pertama), Sessi Pertama (36 comments)

I shall refer to the above collectively as “the contextual factors”.

Federal Court dismisses Lina Joy's appeal (35 comments) OPINION: Why I support the LPA amendments (31 comments)

If one examines the issue of crossovers standing alone, free from the contextual factors, it is indeed

Video links CJ to 'appointment fixing' scandal (28 comments)

logical to conclude that crossovers are morally suspect because there is the uncertainty as to whether or not a would-be party-hopper would continue to enjoy his original mandate from his electorate.

Amaran kepada MCA (27 comments) 2008 Bar Council Subscription (24 comments) Penang Bar passes resolution on SRO Enforcement (23 comments) Judge gives lawyer dressing-down over attire (23 comments)

However, is it morally right to consider the issue of crossovers in isolation, and without regard to the contextual factors? My proposition is that it is not.

OPINION: LPA Amendments - "Stupid is as stupid does" (Forrest Gump) (22 comments)

First of all, the uncertainty over the issue of continuing mandate remains at best an uncertainty, and is at worst a mere conjecture. No one can say that the original mandate is definitely going to be reversed by the electorate if a crossover occurs and if a fresh mandate is immediately sought. Secondly, this uncertainty is based on a number of assumptions that may or may not be true. I will sample just two of them. One assumption is that the majority of the electorate had voted based on

Re:Race Relations Act Needed by Siti Zabedah Kasim

their faith in the representative’s party, rather than in the representative himself. Is that really the case with regard to all, or substantially all, of those who had voted for that representative?

Re:KL YLC Jamuan Buka Puasa by Richard Wee Thiam Seng

Re:BCHRC Organised Visits to Kem Tahanan Kamunting by Syamsuriatina Binti Ishak Re:Race Relations Act Needed by Stephen Tan Ban Cheng Re:Race Relations Act Needed by Siti Zabedah Kasim Re:Race Relations Act Needed by Hamidi Izwan bin Ahmad Soffian

Another assumption is that the electorate, at the time of voting, had in mind that they would want their representative to always tow his party line no matter how important the issue is and how abhorrent the party position is, including on issues that had not been in the contemplation of the electorate at the earlier time of voting. Would it not be equally (if not more) reasonable to make a different assumption, namely that the electorate had voted for the representative on the basis that they perceived him to be one possessing the maturity and ability to put the interest of the nation before the interest of his party? Is it not morally proper to expect all representatives to place the country before his party? Of course as a matter of practicality no representative should lightly break rank with his party on minor issues. But if it comes to crucial issues that will affect the entire future of the nation and the paramount interest of the people, and in such exceptional circumstances, what is so morally objectionable for a parliamentarian to defect to another party if he finds (for example) that the interest of the nation is being gravely compromised by his original party for the immorally selfish sake of holding on to power at any cost? In other words, when one compares the nature and degree of the moral doubt or taint that can be cast upon the act of crossover by a representative, with the nature and extent of the immoral and disastrous consequences that will visit upon the people by his remaining a passive participant in the continuation of the status quo; which act is by far, by very far, the greater evil? How can it be morally superior or imperative for one to refrain from crossing over (thus taking care of a small moral uncertainty), when in the process it would pave the way for a much greater moral disaster to occur? Take the example of the most recent ISA arrests, including that of the journalist Tan Hoon Cheng, and the subsequent idiotic excuses proffered that could hardly disguise the government’s real motive. If a parliamentarian feels that this has gone beyond all sanity, that it threatens the entire fabric of our society and whatever we have built over the years, that it manifests a dangerous disregard of the interest of the rakyat, and that it would plunge the country into dark ages; why in all these circumstances should it be immoral for him to pursue and perform his duty to all Malaysians by crossing over, if he finds that this is the best way to save the nation in a time of unusual crisis? What is so morally unforgivable about that? It is easy for armchair critics to insist that, because there is no practical way of ascertaining whether a representative will enjoy continuous mandate from his electorate, he must refrain from crossing over; never mind the nature or scale of the prevailing crisis facing the country. It is equally simple for Utopians to maintain that the only thing a representative in such a situation can morally do is to resign and trigger a by-election; and in the meantime it is just too bad if he (along with others) has to watch the country burn and its people suffer.

Re:Race Relations Act Needed by Tan Chun Ming Re:Race Relations Act Needed by Tan Choon Heong Re:Race Relations Act Needed by Isa Aziz Ibrahim Re:Race Relations Act Needed by Abdul Fareed Bin Abdul Gafoor show last 4hrs - 24hrs Extraordinary General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar September 20, 2008 (10:00 am) Sijil Annual and PII Workshop September 24, 2008 (9:30 am) Conducting Trials in the Industrial Court September 26, 2008 (9:00 am) Australian Lawyers' Alliance National Conference 2008 October 16 (8:00 am) - October 18, 2008 Getting Started! Penang October 18, 2008 (9:00 am) 21st LAWASIA Conference – ‘Challenging Asia’ Kuala Lumpur October 29 (9:00 am) - November 01, 2008 Arbitration Proceedings and the Arbitration Act 2005 October 31, 2008 (9:00 am) Getting Started K.L. November 7, 2008 (9:00 am) Enforcement of Judgments and Execution Proceedings February 20, 2009 (9:00 am) View Full Calendar Add New Event

That is the result of neglecting to take into account the contextual factors. When one takes into consideration the whole basket of moral issues, the answer will be the opposite. 7

The solution to the moral dilemma will become obvious when one bears in mind that: (a) most morally challenging situations have exceptions to the rule, (b) many moral values are relative and also evolving, (c) one must judge a moral issue in its circumstances and by reference to its consequences as compared with the consequences of the opposite act, (d) moral taints do not come in one single size, and sometimes a weighing exercise is required, and (e) when applied to real-life human situations, the purpose of moral guidance lies not in the desire to be holier than thou, but in enabling society to proceed along a path that is more just and equitable than before.

1

2

3

8

9

10 11 12 13

4

5

6

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

In my view, our country is not just at crucial crossroads. It is more precarious than that. For the first time in the nation’s history, a real opportunity for change and betterment presents itself. If missed, no one knows how long more it will take for another opportunity to come. And while waiting for the next bus, situations will no doubt worsen, and more human sufferings will take place. Hence, I for one would not come down like a ton of bricks on political crossovers, when failing which the reality is that those much more grievous and immoral acts that have oppressed the Malaysian people for decades will continue for God knows how long more, and cause untold sufferings. Such being the likely consequences, I do not see it as morally right to insist on absolute “correctness” in satisfying a relatively minor (and arguable) issue, when by doing so will permit a trainload of greater wrongs to continue to steamroll over an entire population. Lest I be misunderstood, let me make it clear that I am not suggesting that political crossovers are

9/19/2008 12:41 AM

The Malaysian Bar - Comment: The moral dilemma of political crossovers

3 of 3

http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/opinions/comments/comment_the_moral...

always morally justifiable. My point is that it would not be correct to insist, on moral ground, that

Circular No 240/2008 : SSM Bulletin (Issue January-June 2008)

crossovers should be avoided in all circumstances and at all cost. Crossovers should remain the exception rather than the rule. But they should be judged (as to whether or not justified) not in isolation, but by reference to the basket of moralities alluded to above, and by taking into account all the circumstances and weighing their consequences against the likely consequences of their

Circular No 236/2008 Library Legislation Update : 16 September 2008 Circular No 235/2008 : Notice of Extraordinary General Meeting of the

prohibition or refrain.

Malaysian Bar Circular No 233/2008 : Practice Direction from the Chief Judge of Malaya

Like other Malaysians, I hope for a better tomorrow.

No:2/2008 Circular No 232/2008 : Transfer of the High Court Judges Circular No 231/2008 : British Chevening Scholarships

Yeo Yang Poh 15 September 2008 (on the eve of Malaysia Day)

Library Legislation Update : 11 September 2008 Bar Council's Report submitted to the UN Human Rights Council Circular No 230/2008:Sijil Annual and PII Workshop

Email This

Share

Set as favourite

RED BOOK: Know Your Rights (English) (22423) SRO 2005 (English) (17474) BUKU MERAH: Polis Dan Hak-Hak Asas Anda (14333)

Comments (2)

SD Format To Lodge Complaints Against Lawyers (13071)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

SRO 2005 (BM Version) (12839)

...

Judgments of Dato' Nik Hahsim FCJ and Dato' Abdul Aziz FCJ in Subashini

written by Joey Ngu Yi Hui, Tuesday, September 16 2008 10:59 am

Yea ... I was one of those. This article has served its purpose, I'm convinced.

v Saravanan 07 (11634) Lawyer/Law Firm Official Search Form (11586) USA Trafficking In Persons Report 2005 (9502) Memorandum on Quorum (8245)

Joey Ngu Yi Hui

Tun Suffian Foundation Fund-Raising Dinner Souvenir Book - Latest Version (8032)

It's all about wisdom and vision, not moral judgment. written by Tan Chun Ming, Tuesday, September 16 2008 08:45 pm

Mr. N.A. Palkhivala, the Indian constitutional lawyer (page 68 paragraph 2 of his book “Our Constitution Defaced and Defiled”) stated that: "No greater insult can be imagined to members of Parliament and the State Legislatures than to tell them that once they become members of a political party, apart from any question of the party constitution and any disciplinary action the party may choose to take, the Constitution of India itself expects them to have no right for themselves, but they must become soul-less and conscienceless entities who would be driven by their political party in whichever direction the party chooses to push them". The elected MPs represent the "Rakyat", the "Rakyat" hopes that the wisdom of the MPS lead them to a better future. Moral issues have nothing to do with wisdom to govern and vision for the country. Tan Chun Ming

Write comment Title

Comment

Crisis in the Judiciary Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & 2 Ors 2005 [CA] Video links CJ to 'appointment fixing' scandal Walk for Justice: "When lawyers walk, something must be very wrong" Malaysian Bar outraged by a woman detainee stripped naked and forced to do ear squats Fawziah Holdings Sdn Bhd v Metramac Corporation Sdn Bhd 2005 [CA] PKR may challenge Khairy's Rembau win Siri Pemikiran Kritis (Segmen Pertama), Sessi Pertama Nazri launches the Red Book New kid on the blog: Dr Mahathir @ www.chedet.com OPINION: Do laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law? Federal Court dismisses Lina Joy's appeal Jeffrey Jessie: Recognising Transexuals by Honey Tan Lay Ean Mont Kiara tragedy: Parents blame Internet predator The Role of Public Interest Litigation In Promoting Good Governance in Malaysia and Singapore Minister: Study proposal on switch to Syariah law thoroughly The Role of the Judge in a Human Rights World, Cherie Booth QC COMMENT: The judiciary and a study in independence Globalisation: Access to Justice - International Covenants and Protection of Native Rights by Datuk JC Fong, Gerawat Gala, Stanley Eddy and Kilat Beriak Amaran kepada MCA

Sa'adiah, Khoo, Lo & Co.:: Legal Assistants Kamarudin & Partners:: Chambring / Attachment Student & Conveyancing Lawyer

smaller | bigger

Aziz Hon Annuar:: Chambering Students

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

Radzlan, Low & Partners:: Conveyancing Legal Assistant Skrine:: Chambering Students

I have read and agree to the Terms of Use.

Ghani & Co.:: Legal Assistants & Chambering Students Chambers of Noryati Omar:: Legal Assistant Syed Alwi & Ng & Co:: Conveyancing / Banking Lawyer & Litigation Lawyer Mathavan & Co:: Legal Assistant & Chambering Student Ho & Company:: Conveyancing Legal Assistant in Melaka Lim Kian Leong & Co:: Legal Assistant

< Prev [ Back ]

Next >

Zarina G.T. Vanan & Associates:: Legal Assistant/Chambering Student Raja, Darryl & Loh:: Legal Assistant R.Sivagnanam & Associates:: Litigation Lawyers

©2002-2008 All Rights Reserved by Malaysian Bar Council, No. 13, 15 & 17, Leboh Pasar Besar, 50050 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +603-20313003 Fax: +603-20261313 Email: [email protected] Terms of Use

9/19/2008 12:41 AM