Zuraida S Case Has Serious Impact On Malaysian Politics

---

 
Many applauded when former minister Zuraida Kamaruddin was ordered by the High Court, in June last year, to pay her former party PKR RM10 million for going back on a pledge not to jump ship.
As such, the recent Court of Appeal decision to reduce the compensation to RM100,000 despite affirming that she was liable for breaching her bond came as a shock to me.
She even had the audacity to say, with a smirk, that she might deliver the sum in RM1 notes, a sign of the lack of remorse for betraying the rakyat’s trust, particularly the supporters of Pakatan Harapan who were hoping to usher in a new Malaysia.
What is the impact of the Court of Appeal’s ruling on our politics in the near future?
Its decision to uphold the ruling that Zuraida had breached the bond she had with PKR was an important precedent. It shows that those who switch parties can be held liable for breaking a loyalty pledge.
There is an argument that an MP is a wakil rakyat, or people’s representative, rather than a “wakil parti”, or party representative, as understood in the context of a democracy.
I actually favour the idea of allowing elected representatives to find a place of their choice “for the good of the rakyat”, never mind on which platform they were elected in the first place. However, it is unacceptable if done for personal benefit.
In Zuraida’s case, what was her motivation? No one knows. Was she worried that she would be dropped if and when Anwar Ibrahim took over as prime minister after Dr Mahathir Mohamad?
The Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold the lower court’s ruling affirms the value of a contract or a pledge of loyalty to a party.
While many argue in favour of adhering to the basic tenets of democracy, we must also understand the cultural context in which the system is practised, along with the issues of religion, race and populism that come with it.
Despite affirming the lower court’s decision that Zuraida had broken a trust, the Court of Appeal nonetheless found the quantum too drastic and not in proportion with the damage done as a result of the infringement of the contract.
YouTube influencer and lawyer Iswardy Morni, who is also a top gun in Sarawak PKR, felt that the judges should only decide whether the contract was valid, and not dwell on whether or not the quantum was appropriate.
As a lay person, I feel that if we are to deter the act of switching parties, the amount in compensation should be within a person’s ability to pay so it serves better as a warning and a hindrance.
But in the case of Zuraida, being a former minister, RM100,000 is pocket change.
Perhaps a sum in the region of RM5 million would have been a more effective deterrent, but ultimately the courts apply legal principles rather than political ones.
A sum of RM100,000 would likely set me back two to three years but Zuraida’s elation and smirk suggests she does not appear troubled by it.
I would have let it pass if she had not been so audacious.
There is also the question of what message it will send to potential party hoppers.
Elected representatives usually have two concerns if they switched sides — they would not only have lost their seat but would also have had to pay for their treachery.
But in the case of Zuraida, it was just a slap on the wrist. It has effectively sent Malaysian politics back to the dark ages.
How this will play out going forward will determine if the rakyat continue to be at the mercy of politicians who succumb to enticement, bringing instability to our future as a nation. - FMT
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

---