EVEN after one year, there are still certain elements of the “Sheraton move” that remains unanswered and statements that are somehow contradictory. For example, nobody has given a satisfactory explanation as to why Mahathir was not at the Sheraton Hotel where he was expected to be, and this also applies to his abrupt resignation only to elect himself shortly after as an interim prime minister.

How did Muhyiddin Yassin suddenly enter the fold to become a prime ministerial candidate?

I have previously written my thoughts on some of it but at best it remains a thoughtful hypothesis so long as the political actors of the highest echelon refuse to elucidate matters further or only reveal what they would like the public to hear.

But what is indisputably clear with the “Sheraton move” is the huge political ramifications it had; the collapse of the first non-Barisan Nasional (BN) government and its replacement with a prime minister that came out of nowhere, and a government composed of political parties that clearly did not have a mandate to govern.

That is what has incensed so many Malaysians at that time – including me – because the “Sheraton move” represents a subversion of the will of the people, rendering the practice of electing your government meaningless.

As Muhyiddin has also conceded that his government is not the one people voted for, the lack of political legitimacy of the current administration is a paramount problem and one that left our democracy damaged and bruised.

Nevertheless, I will stop short of saying that democracy is dead like many commentators had proclaimed one year ago.

For starters, the “Sheraton move” or instigating a change of government through non-electoral means is not a new political phenomenon.

Remember September 16, 2008, when Anwar Ibrahim, the then Opposition leader, claimed that he had gathered enough defectors from the BN government for his coalition to govern, as he did in September 2020?

It should be noted that Anwar’s coalition partners, DAP and PAS at that time, backed the 2008 “Sheraton move” too. For better or worse, the 2008 plan did not materialise and the only change it brought about was accelerating the fall of Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi.

If Anwar had succeeded in toppling the Badawi government and made himself prime minister, would we be quick to judge that democracy is dead in Malaysia in 2008 or rejoice in Malaysia’s first change of government? I suspect the reaction from those commentators would be quite different from that in 2020.

The inconsistencies between the two similar events are telling and I do believe they are important to be highlighted if we are determined to move past the “Sheraton move” and build our democracy again.

Like the principle of rule of law, we cannot expect democracy to thrive if we only celebrate when “our side” is seen to be winning, but denounce it dead if the winds of change are not on our side.

To clarify, I am not defending the likes of Muhyiddin Yassin or Mohamed Azmin Ali for the role they played in toppling a legitimate government and the timing of their act, which coincided with the threat of Covid-19, making it even more unpalatable.

But what they had done throughout February 2020 – fleeing the Pakatan Harapan (PH) coalition, persuading the opposition to join their fold, and, with that, obtaining federal power – remains legal and constitutional.

If Malaysians believe democracy could not allow such unethical practices like Members of Parliament party hopping and betraying their voters, then they must demand for legislative actions and constitutional amendments to address this.

Unfortunately, anti-hopping laws or recall elections will receive little currency if the public do not call for it because politicians from both sides are seen to be benefiting from it.

There would be no chance that Anwar would come up with his audacious September 16, 2008 move or, more recently, play the numbers game, if there is proper legislation to govern or monitor the allegiance of respective MPs.

Therefore, we must remain politically consistent ourselves and hold politicians to a similar standard. That is, we should not wish to see any more political hopping that could destabilise any government. The battle to change the government should only be allowed in polls, not through elite bargaining in fancy hotels.

Since becoming prime minister, Muhyiddin has also obviously initiated moves that are certainly undemocratic in this one year. This includes the burgeoning of the executive branch by ministerial and GLC appointments, the controversial one-day parliament sitting, the inability of parliament to test the confidence of the prime minister, and, most recently, the use of the state of emergency.

But the truth remains, that Muhyiddin did not pass any legislation nor amended the standing orders or constitution to enable any of these controversial moves. To put it simply, whatever the prime minister has done so far appears to be legal because the law of this land permits it.

The prime minister in Malaysia remains a position holding immense executive power, and what we are witnessing is an embattled prime minister who has lost the majority in Parliament and is using any right vested in him to stay in charge.

Therefore, democracy, to me, is not exactly dead in Malaysia but is prone to abuse, and the glaring problem is that there is a lack of political will to address the democratic deficits residing within our imperfect political system.

The problem did not begin with the Perikatan Nasional (PN) government, and it certainly will not be the last to abuse it if we do not address it soon enough.

For me, the only good thing that came out of the “Sheraton move” is the fact that now many people are beginning to realise how powerful a prime minister can be by controlling both the executive and legislative branch.

Maybe this is where we can bring about a change, through public pressure on politicians so that Malaysians can wrest power from the executive in order to give our democracy the chance to thrive. – February 28, 2021.

* 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.