Do MPs vote according to their consciences?

It is the right of the rakyat to ask why their representative in Parliament did not attend a sitting because, well, that is the representative’s main responsibility.

And several days ago, the rakyat who voted for Pakatan Rakyat did just that when they asked why 26 of their members of Parliament were absent in the Dewan Rakyat.

Their absence then saw the Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2015 (Pota) being voted in 79 to 60 after being debated for over 12 hours until the wee hours of the morning.

The public was rife with criticism, complaints, accusations and anger. They said that if only all the Pakatan Rakyat representatives had shown up, the vote would have been different.

However, it is important to note that no matter what, the Barisan Nasional representatives still outnumbered Pakatan Rakyat. Hence, the ruling party and the opposition.

And Malaysia practises the whip system where there is someone called the chief whip who makes sure that all the lawmakers from that particular party vote along the party line.

Not all Barisan Nasional representatives were present on that fateful day either. And if their numbers had remained the same and all of the opposition turned up, it would have been a different story.

But if that were to happen (Pakatan Rakyat outnumbering Barisan Nasional), what would have stopped their chief whip from issuing a directive for all his people to turn up and vote?

It would have been a foregone conclusion that Pota would have gone through anyway, no matter what the situation in Parliament that day.

But there are two issues, really. The first is that it doesn’t matter if they were going to lose, the Pakatan Rakyat representatives had an obligation to represent the voice of their constituencies.

If their constituents didn’t agree with Pota, then the MPs had to be there to debate and vote against it because their voice needs to be in Parliament. It is their right.

It didn’t matter if collectively they would have lost. What mattered is that the MPs had stood up for their constituents and shown that they were doing all they could.

As for the second point, what does the whip system really mean? Does it mean that the representatives represent their parties or their constituents?

In most other countries that practise the Westminster system of government, the whip is not in force most of the time in Parliament unless it is instructed by the chief whip.

However, in Malaysia, the whip is under constant enforcement unless otherwise instructed by the chief whip or his deputies. So, the representatives will always have to toe the party line.

There have been times when the backbenchers have gone against the party directive and when it does happen, disciplinary action is always taken against them. Hence it is a very rare event.

That raises the question of whether MPs in Malaysia actually vote or argue according to their conscience or the will of their constituents as opposed to just doing so under the directive of their parties.

(Note: The opposition also has their chief whip.)

And we as Malaysians, when we vote in a general election, are we really voting for the best person to represent us or are we just voting for someone who represents a party? – April 10, 2015.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.