THE 2018 general election drastically changed Malaysia’s political landscape, with the people ousting an administration that had ruled since Merdeka.

Widely accused of largesse and systemic corruption, the Barisan Nasional government was nevertheless rather stable. This stability was largely owing to its predictability, the idea that the same coalition would rule and the distribution of political power among the races would not change despite tweaks in parliamentary seat allocation.

The margins of victory, too, have thinned. Since 2008, no pact has won the two-thirds majority required to amend the constitution, figures that BN previously enjoyed since its inception.

Lobby groups used to approach just one party or pact, but as of the 2008 polls, that’s no longer the case, with state government controls falling to different outfits. This complicates the process of lobbying and the closely associated, sometimes overlapping, issue of political bribery.

Without proper legislation governing matters like political funding, there will continue to be quarters with vested interests putting pressure on elected representatives to ensure laws protect corporate giants, trade groups and other agenda-driven organisations instead of the rakyat.

If the events of the last couple of months have taught us anything, it’s that there’s a desperate need for an anti-hopping law at the federal level. Present anti-corruption laws that some have tried to enforce to stem party-hopping are simply too wide and too loose, and take too long. The same can be said about personal contracts taken up by at least two parties. A specific anti-hopping law is the only way to uphold the people’s mandate.

The winner-takes-all system also means that most statutory appointments are either directly or indirectly made by the government of the day. Often, the development and implementation of key policies depend on these appointees, among them the attorney-general, chairmen of the various commissions, authorities and councils, and members of regulatory boards.

This represents a grey area of delegated lawmaking, where there’s no elected representation. Often, these executive powers are unchecked and wield great influence, deciding on a myriad of issues from tariffs, trade regulations and taxes to the approval of licences and concessions.

A frequent change of government raises the prospect of frequent changes in policies, which can be a double-edged sword. Perhaps, these top appointments can be extended to terms of five or 10 years and made more secure, similar to the tenure granted to senior academics or judicial positions.

As it may be awkward for some appointees to retain their posts when there has been a change of guard, it would be prudent to reserve sensitive roles for neutral, apolitical parties. This allows room for scrutiny or equity, a check and balance of sorts, while the broader policies are outlined by the government.

Corporate appointments for politicians made purely on the grounds of reward should be stopped. Not only should politics stay out of business, but the argument that some government-linked companies and government-linked investment companies have a social responsibility to consider is outdated and moot. Most of the power lies with their boards, where the government is represented by both shareholding and regulatory law. These bodies must be allowed to do their jobs with less interference and seat-warming just to collect an allowance.

Like it or not, Malaysia is heading into an era of compromise-based, convenient-alliance politics. While the bickering seems set to persist, there is no reason for it to hold back the running of the country, especially in areas where politicking is needlessly present. – June 10, 2020.

* Emmanuel Joseph firmly believes that Klang is the best place on Earth, and that motivated people can do far more good than any leader with motive.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.