Constitutional Experts Slam Mahathir’s Proposal for Two-Party System
PETALING JAYA: Constitutional law experts have dismissed former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s call for legislation to establish a two-party political system as unconstitutional.
Unconstitutional and Restrictive
Constitutional law professor Shad Saleem Faruqi and constitutional lawyer Bastian Pius Vendargon cautioned that the proposed law could contravene a Federal Constitution provision that guarantees freedom of speech and association. Shad Saleem said Mahathir’s proposed law would contravene Article 10(1)(c) of the constitution, which states that all citizens have the right to form associations.
Freedom of Choice
He said it also violates Article 10(2)(c) which permits restrictions on the right to form associations, on the grounds of security, public order or morality. "This means that (people of) all races, religions, regions, professions or groups have the right to set up and join associations as long as these associations are not banned on specified grounds," he told FMT.
Respecting Diversity
"We are in a federal state. How can you stop regional parties from existing? What will happen to the Sabahan and Sarawakian parties?" he asked, saying the same questions can be asked to justify the existence of religious-based parties and labour-based parties. "We are in a multi-religious and multiracial state. There are bound to be parties representing diverse beliefs and points of view, and that has to be respected."
No Absolute Freedom
Mahathir, when asked if such a law would go against freedom of assembly or association, had said that there can be "no absolute freedom". "When you find that freedom destroys a society, you have to think about limits to freedom," he said at a press conference on Nov 28.
Strengthening Anti-Hopping Law
However, Shad Saleem disagreed, saying that Malaysians need to realise that the current political landscape is an evolution of democracy. "We must come to terms with the idea that the age of omnipotent political majorities is over. Minority governments, coalition governments and unity governments are probably here to stay for a few decades."
Rather than insist on a two-party system, he said, the nation should focus on strengthening its anti-hopping law. "We must remove the incentives that motivate party hoppers to cross the floor. The number of cabinet posts at the federal level must be capped. MPs must be barred from holding posts in statutory bodies and government-linked companies," Shad Saleem said.
Constitutional Expert’s Opinion
Vendargon agreed that any compulsion for a two-party system may offend the fundamental rights of freedom of speech, assembly and association (with limitations) as stated under Article 10 of the constitution. He described the proposal as "an unnatural forced creation that impinges upon the freedom of choice for citizens".
Conclusion
In conclusion, the proposal for a two-party political system is unconstitutional and restricts the freedom of association and speech. Instead of focusing on a two-party system, the nation should focus on strengthening its anti-hopping law and promoting a healthy democracy.
FAQs
Q: Why is the proposal for a two-party system unconstitutional?
A: The proposal contravenes Article 10(1)(c) of the constitution, which guarantees the right to form associations, and Article 10(2)(c) which permits restrictions on the right to form associations on specified grounds.
Q: What are the implications of a two-party system?
A: It would restrict the freedom of association and speech, and may lead to the suppression of diverse beliefs and points of view.
Q: What is the alternative to a two-party system?
A: Strengthening the anti-hopping law and promoting a healthy democracy, which allows for diverse parties and independent candidates.