Toe the line or else …

0

THE public row between two cabinet ministers, one federal and the other, state, over the implementation of the tourism tax in Malaysia has fizzled out somewhat, but it is too soon to tell whether the small sparks have really died out.

The problem of personal chemistry has been settled and hopefully the serious issue (state/federal legislative powers on tourism) from which the ‘Jagung War’ stemmed has not been swept under the carpet.

Before the Prime Minister put his foot down last week, like a good father reprimanding two quarrelsome sons, the controversy was raging unabated. In cyberspace, the sky was the limit; in the coffee shops, it was the menu of the day, for a week.

The whole episode must have caused a lot of embarrassment to the politicians in the ruling coalition. We hope that this sort of public spat will be the last.

The tax

The new tourism law is scheduled to become operative with effect from this Saturday, July 1. Each hotel in the country will impose an extra charge on every room occupied, ranging from RM2.50 to RM20, depending on the ‘stars’ that each hotel is labelled with.

Are not these charges over and above the GST?

Unless there is an express exemption for Sarawak or Sabah from this latest tax, the hotels in these two states will have no choice but to abide by the law, like it or not.

In a sense, they act as the tax collectors for the government; invariably, they will pass on all of that charge or part of it to the guests. Actually, the hotels are not that heavily burdened by the tax; just a little extra effort on their part to help collect some revenue for the country is required.

As the name implies, this particular tax is supposed to benefit the tourism industry of the country. That means part of it eventually will be shared equitably among the tourism ministries in the three regions – peninsula, Sarawak and Sabah. Indeed, such an intention has been expressed by the federal minister. So have I read or do I assume too much?

There’s no doubt that there is genuine fear among the proprietors of hotels in the Borneo states who regard this tax as an extra financial burden on their potential guests. Their guests may not come back for the second time, let alone for the third. The development of the local tourism industry itself may be adversely affected in the short term, if I may add.

Cabinet Collective Responsibility

Now that there is a ban on discussing the dispute in public, I will confine myself to commenting on a side issue which is less controversial: Cabinet Collective Responsibility.

Someone reportedly said that Sarawakians in the federal cabinet could not have spoken against the Tourism Tax Bill because of the “spirit of collective responsibility”.

The device has its origins somewhere else – not in Malaysia. It was adopted as a stance by English cabinet ministers in the 18th century for the purpose of dealing with their feudal monarchs.

In those days, as the Monarch had the power and authority to appoint the cabinet ministers, though in theory it was the Prime Minister who had that prerogative, the King could dismiss any minister if the minister did not do what the King wanted done. A monarch dealing directly and individually with cabinet ministers could cause a serious split in the cabinet. To forestall any problem with the King, the ministers had to stick together. Any one of them who was off tangent would have to go.

In his book ‘The Queen’s Government’, Sir Ivor Jennings wrote, “Cabinet government is government by committee, but it differs from ordinary committee government because, through the party system, an attempt is made to achieve uniformity of political opinion.”

Malaysia has inherited this tradition and is keeping it because it has served the Malaysian cabinet’s purpose well.

It’s a simple concept to understand but difficult to apply in our Malaysian setting though the country is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations.

In modern Britain, also a Commonwealth member, all the members of the cabinet are honour-bound to fully support cabinet decisions. If a member disagrees with any important policy decision, he must resign or is politely asked to relieve himself of his duties.

If the opposing views are allowed to cause continuing annoyance, the authority of the cabinet and indeed of the government itself may be undermined. The theory is that an attack on the minister who is responsible for initiating a policy or legislation is an attack on the cabinet and an attack on the cabinet is an attack on the government.

I do not remember of any one minister (state or federal) in Malaysia having resigned over policy disagreement and doing so voluntarily in recent times.

During the time when Tunku Abdul Rahman was the prime minister of the country, one federal minister was politely asked to leave the cabinet after the latter had incessantly expounded an alien ideology. He retired gracefully and with dignity.

Except for this one instance, we Malaysians don’t resign bah.

MPs

If any blame is necessary, blame the system in which the MPs are operating: the party system. They are bound by the same principle of collective responsibility, applied liberally, in order to control the behaviour of the MPs when Parliament is in session.

In Parliament, there is the ‘Whip’ in the governing party, whose job it is to ensure that the members attend meetings and if a ‘Division’ is called for a vote, they must vote according to the instruction of the Whip on how or what to vote; personal conscience is sometimes set aside.

The opposition parties have similar discipline to observe for the sake of party unity. After all, the opposition is the alternative government. If and when they form the administration, some of their MPs will form the cabinet, to provide the uniformity of opinion that Sir Ivor Jennings is talking about. Read all this into the possible reason why the BN members from Sarawak did not vote against the Tourism Tax Bill when it was tabled in Parliament during the ungodly hours of the morning on April 5.

Even if they were all present in the chamber, they could not have done so simply because, as members of parliament from a party (in their case, a coalition of parties) in power, they are bound by the principle of the collective responsibility. Any MP going against the policy is against the policy of the cabinet and by extension that of the government itself.

Needless to say that every MP has other considerations to think about in addition to group interests – his political future, first; interests of his constituents, second.

That’s our brand of democracy, which we have adopted for our own use for the past half century, warts and all.

Selamat menyambut Aidilfitri.

Comments can reach the writer via [email protected].