Proposal for Structural Reform in the Politics of Race and Religion

At a seminar organised by TindakMalaysia, themed "70 years of General Elections: Shaping Malaysian Democracy" on July 26, 2025, I made a proposal which may appear to naive, only because I had not had the time to elaborate fully.

Here are my key points, which I hope will ignite further discussion—because now is the most opportune moment to push for meaningful parliamentary reform:

1. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is more open to collaboration with
BERSIH and Tindak—or at least is seen to be so. Anwar spent some time to meet with Bersih steering committee. 

2. The Madani government holds a two-thirds majority, and given that Madani MPs generally conduct themselves more civilly than the Opposition, Anwar likely to consider the proposal.

3. The current Agong, Sultan Ibrahim King of Malaysia upholds inclusivity, and within the Conference of Malay Rulers, at least two Sultans have voiced concern about the current state of affairs.

4. ⁠This is only a rough draft of the ideas I am putting forward. Much more dialogue is needed to refine the proposal. Central to it is the need for punitive measures that can influence the eligibility of problematic parliamentarians—similar to the existing provision that disqualifies any lawmaker fined RM2,000 or more by the court.

5. ⁠Without such consequences, even the Sultan of Selangor’s subtle
reprimand won’t shift the behaviour of those chiefly responsible for our divisive political landscape.

6. ⁠The Rakyat want a more disciplined and dignified parliament, akin to what’s seen in Singapore and the UK. As a parent, I would feel embarassed to show my children how MPs behave in august house, especially when one MP from Kinabatangan, Bung Mokhtar used a banned word F**K in parliament. 

7. ⁠Although the Dewan Speaker is able at times to control the shouting matches between the parliamentarians, the culture has remained unchanged. Unless some more drastic punitive actions are introduced, we can talk until the cow comes home, nothing will change 70 years down to the road.

Look at how the UK lawmakers behave themselves when bringing a topic to the table.

Shameful Malaysian parliament - when will this end? 

        Due to the Opposition’s inability to effectively channel the people’s concerns into the august house, several PAS MPs took the initiative in the early months of the current parliamentary term—beginning shortly after the 15th General Election in November 2022—to raise 3R issues they believed would resonate with their constituents.

    Perhaps the most absurd episode was when Kepala Batas MP, Siti Mastura Muhammad, alleged that DAP leaders Lim Guan Eng, Lim Kit Siang, and Teresa Kok were linked to the late Communist Party of Malaya leader Chin Peng and Singapore’s founding prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew. The High Court later found her guilty of making defamatory remarks with malice, ruling that her statements were baseless, reckless, and inflammatory.

        Even the racial and religious remarks made by PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang were uncalled for—yet they were permitted to stand during the general election. If this is the brand of democracy we are embracing, it is little surprise that our parliament is often reduced to shouting matches, rather than civil and substantive debate among lawmakers.

        There is no reason why parliamentarians should not be subject to disqualification from contesting in a general election—especially when stringent vetting procedures are already in place for appointing members of the public to senatorial positions. If integrity and accountability are prerequisites for the upper house, the same standards ought to apply to those seeking election to the lower house.

        

        Perhaps it is time to consider, among other reforms, whether the Election Commission Act can be amended to empower the EC—or establish an independent mechanism—to vet candidates seeking to contest in the next general election from each party. 

        If even this basic safeguard cannot be implemented, we should not expect the culture of our august house to evolve. It will remain a theatre of unruly conduct, rather than a chamber of principled debate.

        In fact, this principle should not be limited to parliamentarians alone, but extended to every citizen. Any individual whose utterances incite racial or religious tension must be held accountable—promptly censured and charged in court. 

        Allowing such individuals to evade consequences, as seen in the recent cases involving Zamri Vinoth and Firdaus Wong, undermines the rule of law and erodes public trust in our justice system and the professionalism of the police in conducting thorough investigations. 

        If, for instance, police reports were lodged against these individuals, then either the reports were baseless and individuals can be charged for lodging false police reports — or the duo had indeed made statements that stirred public sentiment. 

        In either case, the matter warrants serious scrutiny, not silence, or it will affect public opinion towards both the Attorney-General's office and the Royal Malaysian Police. 

        During the last general election, there were a number of issues raised by both former Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yasin and Hadi Awang relating to race and religion, as well as the centerinarian Dr Mahathir Mohamad, but nothing has been done to prosecute him.

        Except for remarks made against a sultan or the King, this is the reason why for over 70 years of nationhood, we have never been able to address the issues of race and religion in this country. Politicians, who are the main culrpits, are left untouched.