UNLIKE the legislative and judicial branches, the executive branch under the Westminster model must adhere to the principle of collective responsibility. Divisions are allowed in Parliament (legislature) or in the case of a higher court overturning the decisions of lower courts (judiciary). But, decisions by the government (executive) should be collective and singular. A minister should not, under any circumstance, criticise the government’s decision. Any decision made in the cabinet is final, and ministers are to live and die by it – unless the cabinet decides otherwise.

Cabinet collective responsibility, or the “indivisibility of the executive”, was partly conceived to ensure the government can operate with little disagreement, and it compels ministers to portray a united front. After all, a government that is divided, where ministers’ statements contradict each other’s, inspires no confidence among the public and undermines the prime minister’s authority.

Therefore, under cabinet collective responsibility, a minister must not vote against government bills in Parliament. A vote against any such bill should immediately lead to the dismissal of the said minister. Secondly, a minister may remain silent to cabinet decisions they personally disagree with, but failure to defend their decision should render them as having contravened the collective responsibility principle. In other words, all ministers must be a unanimous voice to the public. In exchange, ministers are given total freedom to speak their minds – debate, argue, deliberate – at cabinet meetings without fear of a political backlash. Along with public unanimity, there is a confidentiality principle that ensures the views aired at cabinet meetings stay behind closed doors, allowing for frank discussions.

Most importantly, all cabinet decisions are those of its members. Ministers should not, in an attempt to shirk responsibility, downplay their role in the cabinet when seemingly unpopular decisions are made. As long as ministers hold their posts, they are bound by the decisions made in the cabinet, no ifs or buts.

While the UK views collective responsibility as more of a constitutional convention, Malaysia’s federal constitution has provisions that actually support the principle. To begin with, the cabinet shall be collectively responsible to Parliament, as stipulated under Article 43(3). Secondly, if the prime minister does not command the majority support of MPs, the government is deemed defeated, and the prime minister may seek a general election or tender his cabinet’s resignation. Therefore, a vote of no confidence against the prime minister can be construed as one against the cabinet as well.

It is safe to say the spirit of cabinet collective responsibility has been brazenly breached numerous times under the Pakatan Harapan government, especially regarding the controversial renewal of Lynas’ licence. The contradictory statements issued by Entrepreneur Development Minister Mohd Redzuan Md Yusof and Energy, Science, Technology, Environment and Climate Change Minister Yeo Bee Yin regarding the arrangements for Lynas waste assured no one, and risked dividing the cabinet along party lines. There is nothing to gain from ministers contradicting each other, and it was ill-advised for Yeo to take a hasty stance prior to the licence renewal decision without first consulting the cabinet.

Her personal stand on Lynas is redundant because she is bound by the cabinet. She should’ve focused on convincing her colleagues to support her views at cabinet meetings. Given that the cabinet has decided otherwise, it could only mean that she either failed to do so, or did not argue her case. This leaves her with two options: support the decision wholeheartedly, or resign from the cabinet in protest.

While some may think cabinet collective responsibility could relegate ministers to being merely yes-men and stifle political discourse, it is a double-edged sword. Utilised properly, it serves to check and challenge the cabinet’s decisions.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson resigned as foreign secretary under Theresa May’s administration out of this very principle, because he could not bring himself to support the Brexit deal agreed on by the previous cabinet. Similarly, the controversial Iraq war, which was supported by Tony Blair’s cabinet, forced the leader of the House of Commons, Robin Cook, to resign from the post. Cook, formerly a cabinet member, then gave an impassioned speech on his disagreement with the government’s decision in Parliament, knowing full well that he was unable to do so as a cabinet member. In Malaysia, former law minister Mohd Zaid Ibrahim quit Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s cabinet over the latter’s abuse of the Internal Security Act. Zaid’s resignation was instrumental in forcing the then prime minister to step down.

Hence, Yeo’s responsibility for Lynas’ licence renewal is no more or less than any of her cabinet colleagues. Yet, she has failed to grasp the concept of collective responsibility, and tried to mitigate blame. She continues to maintain her personal stance on how to handle Lynas waste, which is the polar opposite of the cabinet decision. Clearly, the minister is shirking her responsibility by insinuating her personal views are different from those of the cabinet. Moreover, she claimed that ministers from DAP backed her stance.

Setting aside the question of how six DAP ministers could not convince the cabinet to fulfil an electoral promise, Yeo has knowingly or unknowingly breached the confidentiality principle. Since the cabinet made its decision on the matter known, these ministers have been desperately trying to distance themselves by saying the party does not agree with the decision. Thus, are they deliberately shunning their collective responsibility just to impress upon their supporters that they are not breaking promises?

The UK’s cabinet manual for the 2010-15 coalition government proclaimed: “‘Agree to disagree’ processes may only be used in relation to different party positions within a coalition. Any public dissociation from cabinet decisions by individual ministers outside the agreed processes is unacceptable.” While the parties of a coalition government can agree to disagree, cabinet decisions should be unitary and final.

Unless they are prepared to resign, the DAP ministers would do well to remember that they should not publicly eschew their collective responsibility while staying in the cabinet. As the saying goes, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. – August 23, 2019.

* Kenneth Cheng has always been interested in the interplay between human rights and government but more importantly he is a father of two cats, Tangyuan and Toufu. When he is not attending to his feline matters, he is most likely reading books about politics and human rights or playing video games. He is a firm believer in the dictum “power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will”.

* 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.