WHETHER or not the defeat of the motion to extend a key provision of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) in Parliament earlier this week signals the end of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Government and the Opposition is true or otherwise, is not quite clear.
This provision of the SOSMA Act 2012 allows the detention of a suspect for 28 days without the oversight of the court.
In responding to the motion, 84 MPs voted for it and 86 MPs voted in unison against it.
The defeat of the motion has prompted some UMNO MPs – some of whom were not even present in Parliament on the fateful day – to say that the Opposition betrayed the MOU.
Since the MOU has been rendered non-existent, the calls for an earlier general election have grown louder.
I am not sure whether the MPs who are declaring the MOU dead are the same ones who did not attend the parliamentary session where the vote was taken.
Why didn’t they attend the parliamentary session?
Why the MPs were absent is an interesting question – did they deliberately not attend the parliamentary session to ensure the defeat of the motion in question, or did they have better things to do?
Personally, I think that there was a deliberate attempt to defeat the motion by not attending the session to pave way for an early general election.
Once the motion was defeated the UMNO MPs were quick to say that since the Opposition had failed to support the Government as required in the MOU, the Government therefore has no choice but to abandon the prior agreement.
However, it is important to point out here that the MOU signed between the Government and Opposition did not preclude the notion of checks and balances.
The MOU was not a blank check that the Opposition gave the Government to do whatever it wanted to do but rather, an agreement to bring about political stability or transformative politics.
The Opposition agreed to support the budget to ensure Government stability in return for the implementation of, among other things, the anti-hopping legislation.
I don’t think that the Opposition gave up its traditional oppositional role – far from it, actually.
Although the MOU was a diluted version of the reform agenda of the Opposition, it was also an attempt to prevent the kleptocratic leaders from UMNO from coming to power.
For the non-performing Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaacob, it was a lifetime opportunity to be in a number one position for some time.
The MOU between the Government and the Opposition has not gone well with some sections of diehard supporters of the latter.
However, the pact with the Government is one of the reasons why the Opposition is not doing well in politics.
The longer the MOU lasts, the longer it is going to take the Opposition to make back a comeback in national politics.
The motion to renew a key provision in SOSMA is not only a blessing for UMNO leaders who are pressing for an early general election but an equal blessing for the Opposition.
The very fact that they could come together under trying circumstances to defeat the motion speaks well for the Opposition.
This dissent against an obnoxious provision of SOSMA gives some credibility to the Opposition.
Opposition weakened by association with former PM
The Opposition has been generally weakened by its association with the former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohammed in the aftermath of the 2018 general election.
After losing a series of by-elections to UMNO-led Barisan Nasional (BN), the Opposition’s credibility is low and submerged.
The defeat of the parliamentary motion that sought to buttress the cruel and obnoxious provision of SOSMA has earned some credibility to the Opposition in general.
It doesn’t matter whether the MOU is intact or not as it might be dead for those kleptocrats who want to push for an early election anyway.
But an early election is the last thing the Opposition wants as they believe that an election should be scheduled only after a full term.
Even if a general election is called by the federal government, Pakatan Harapan (PH) and even those states under PAS might not go along with it.
There is no real necessity for PH leaders to defend the idea that the MOU is still in force.
I don’t think any Opposition worthy of its name will support the draconian provision of SOSMA, whether the vote against the provision contravenes the MOU or not.
The MOU is a short measure to keep the kleptocrats from gaining power but it would be politically suicidal for the Opposition to support the renewal of the provision of SOSMA in the name of defending the MOU.
So what if the vote against the SOSMA provision went against the MOU?
It is not worth it to blindly support the MOU if it condones nasty and inhumane legislations like SOSMA.
The Opposition made a mistake in not calling for the repeal of the legislation itself. Why oppose only a particular provision and not the entire legislation?
While the vote against the special provision of SOSMA has given some measure of credibility and respect to the Opposition, there is still a long way to go for the Opposition to restore the credibility and legitimacy that it had just a few years ago. – March 25, 2022
Prof Ramasamy Palanisamy is the state assemblyperson for Perai. He is also deputy chief minister II of Penang.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
