Institutional reforms, anyone?

At the time of writing, the Grand Old Man of Malaysian politics, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has united many members of the opposition and disfavoured members of Umno, such as his son Datuk Seri Mukhriz and former deputy prime minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, to form his "core group" to oust Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

I am sure more drama would have unfolded by the time this article is published, considering Dr Mahathir's reputation of being the political extravagant par excellence and with at least three weeks until the planned anti-Najib rally on March 27, that leaves plenty of time for political manoeuvrings, and out-manoeuvrings.

Many commentators – be it the professional or the leisurely kind – would say this is the time to grab our popcorns for the show to come. But I just can't make myself to do that.

The outcome of such political "sandiwara", after all, will determine the course of the nation, which is very important in testing times like this, when economic and geopolitical challenges abound.

One disconcerting issue remains the language game that is being played. Basically, it is a political elite dominated discourse, where the diagnosis situates the problem only at the top by positing two assumptions.

First, everything that is wrong with Malaysia now is just about Najib. Second, if the prime minister is removed, we would automatically be directed to greatness and can finally realise our potential as the "beacon" of Southeast Asia, as The Economist puts it.

But how true is that? Surely a man alone cannot determine his fate as the head of government, let alone withstand the pressures stemming from a massive financial scandal that poses a personal liability. There must be institutions buttressing the prime minister's seemingly infallible position, for a government is also an institution to begin with.

If Dr Mahathir's willingness to work with archrivals such as Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Lim Kit Siang is of any indication, we are already looking at a situation where the position of the prime minister is simply too powerful. A corollary to this would be that the other institutions are either weakened, or compromised.

Many of these institutions, as long-term observers of Malaysian politics can tell you, actually have their integrity and professionalism eroded the most during Dr Mahathir's rule.

And as the weight of domestic and international censure piles in conjunction with the relentless exposes on the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) fiasco, there are even greater incentives now to continue subjugating and diminishing the independence of our institutions. We have seen senior government officials being "retired", and investigators themselves were being investigated.

So here lies the question, if the movement successfully gets the alleged dictatorial prime minister removed (and replaced), will we finally see light at the end of the tunnel, even if the movement is spearheaded by a leader that is not known for his benign qualities?

A long term remedy is needed to stem our fall on this slippery slope. This is because for every case of political instability and internal crisis within Umno, institutions were progressively corroded to enable leaders to bend the rules for their survival.

What we are seeing today is as much a recalcitrant leader as the institutional weaknesses that sustain his survival and many questionable actions that border on the authoritarian.

Besides, we must be careful of the thinking that any revolutionary change can be undoubtedly good for the country. As the case of the Arab Spring has shown, when institutions are weak and appropriated for personal gains, political transitions – even when they were jumpstarted on solid grounds – may lead to greater chaos.

To be fair, institutional reforms were indeed mentioned, first raised by Muhyiddin to limit the prime minister's powers, and then again by Nurul Izzah, who maintained that institutional reforms must be prioritised over personal vengeance.

The so-called Citizens' Declaration also contains a cursory mention of it, such as repealing "recent laws and agreements (author's note: obviously referring to the TPPA) that violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by the federal constitution and undermine policy choices" as well as restoring "the integrity of the institutions that have been undermined, such as the police, the MACC, Bank Negara and the PAC".

However, one can still sense that "institutional reforms" is still brandied around as a loaded yet completely empty term. It can mean anything and everything; and until now it is still the sideshow to a political project that sees removing Najib as an end in itself.

To herald institutional reforms as the centerpiece, we have no choice but to make it loud and clear. Only with specific outcomes outlined we can make sure that the net gains are institutional, not personal; even if political gains would invariably accrue to certain parties in the process.

So in the spirit of this, I wish to put up my own list of 10 institutional reforms that should be demanded by any concerned citizen of Malaysia, for if institutions are not strengthened and safeguarded, we will only have a case of a revolving door of dubious politicians and their embarrassing scandals.

Here are some institutional reforms we should consider, albeit not the exhaustive list:

1. Establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to investigate the 1MDB issue (and its multiple affiliated scandals) and follow through legal actions on investigative outcomes, if necessary.
2. Parliamentary reforms to ensure better deliberation and scrutiny of bills; for example, specific, bipartisan committees to vet through bills before they are tabled in Parliament to prevent the haughty passing of controversial bills as we have seen multiple times already.
3. Ensure separation of powers between the judiciary, executive and legislative. For this, restoring the independence of the judiciary is important.
4. Review and repeal authoritarian laws, such as the Sedition Act, Section 124B of the Penal Code, Prevention of Terrorism Act (Pota), the National Security Council (NSC) bill (which has not received Royal assent) and so on. At this point, I would still argue for counter-terrorism purposes, Sosma alone would suffice.
5. Ensure transparency of governance by reviewing and repealing laws that could potentially obfuscate public enquiry, such as the Official Secrets Act, and the multiple offences under Section 124, as well as Section 203A of the Penal Code.
6. Safeguard academic freedom and the independence of such institutions.
7. Safeguard media freedom and rescind all suppressive actions against media outlets.
8. Electoral reforms to reduce malapportionment and gerrymandering. Also, political funding rules must be tightened and fair to all parties involved, incumbent and opposition.
9. Control discretional spending, especially by the Prime Minister's Department, and better allocation of resources to state and local governments.
10. Devise short and long term plans to tackle institutionalised racism in Malaysia because like it or not, this is what is holding us back, socially, politically and economically.

The whole point of having robust political systems is so that systems can outlive, outplay and outlast politicians, be it good or bad ones.  If it would appear that personalities can shortchange and manipulate the system at will, then not only do the individuals need to go, the system needs to as well.

In order to do so, less focus should be placed on who is leading the charge, but what can the person bring to the table. That should be our "social contract" with the politicians. – March 11, 2016.

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