COMMENT The first part of this retrospective discussed cause and consequence - the political before and after of the Kajang Move for its architects. Today and tomorrow’s instalments discuss the ‘during’ period.

We will focus on questions of consistency and following the right procedure, working on the assumption that adherence to these two principles is imperative for any political movement built on integrity.

In this chronological analysis, today we will go as far as PAS’ initial withdrawal of its support for Khalid Ibrahim, while tomorrow, in the final lap, we will examine the controversy surrounding the constitutional monarchy.

A question that underpins the following exposition is: how many wrongs does it take to make a right?

We start with the resignation of Lee Chin Cheh ( right ) as the then assemblyperson for Kajang. We recall that when Lee announced his resignation, PAS and DAP expressed shock. Clearly, they were not told of this move.

Among PKR’s initial excuses were that the full plan had not really been ‘decided’ on, and that there was no decision yet to replace the menteri besar.

This is inconsistent with later statements - including those in the PKR Disciplinary Board’s show-cause correspondence with Abdul Khalid Ibrahim - that replacing the menteri besar was indeed the plan all along.

Speaking of Khalid, one of the criticisms levelled against him was that he did not practice consultative government.

Proper procedure suggests the right thing for PKR to have done was to have consulted its partners in the coalition - PAS and DAP - before launching the Kajang Move. Doing so would have proved that they are indeed consistent in upholding consultation as an important part of the political process.

Inconsistent reasons for removing Khalid

PKR did not seem to provide consistent reasons for wanting Khalid removed.

At the beginning, Rafizi Ramli ( left ) waxed most emotionally on how former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamed was leading a charge against Najib Razak, which if successful would essentially lead to racial riots and blood on the streets. Somehow, making Anwar Ibrahim menteri besar would stop all this.

When this outlandish excuse didn’t fly, PKR then shifted its attention to the Bible issue and the Kinrara-Damansara Expressway (Kidex).

Some weeks and months later, when that too failed to gain significant traction, they said Khalid had to be replaced because of the water deal, Bank Islam, and the Tropicana land deal - things that essentially happened after the Kajang Move, not before.

I have addressed these accusations in a s ix-part article (in what I was told was a record for Malaysiakini - sorry - so I won’t repeat the points here).

PKR also appeared to have a confused stance on responsibility. Whoever was responsible for Pakatan’s unparalleled success in Selangor during the 13th general election held last year should also be responsible for any alleged problems in its governance.

If a team effort resulted in electoral improvement, then it is the team that must take responsibility for Selangor’s problems. If Khalid alone is responsible for Selangor’s problems, then Khalid alone should take responsibility for the electoral improvement.

However, somehow it seems that PKR tried to sell the idea that Pakatan was responsible for electoral improvement, but only Khalid was responsible for Selangor’s problems. This seems to me inconsistent.

Suffice to say, that if they were consistent, PKR should have focused on the same reasons for removing Khalid from the moment (or even before) Lee stepped down, to the day Khalid stepped down.

Had their reasons been grounded consistently in believable facts, evidence and sound reasoning, then perhaps the Kajang Move would have been accepted across the board.

Pakatan has to be formal in decision-making

The next major milestone was PKR’s formal announcement that they wanted Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail to replace Khalid.

There was some major confusion in the Pakatan Rakyat meeting following this announcement, which I have previously explored in detail and which sent people scrambling to define the word ‘accept’.

Pakatan was trumpeted to be a coalition of equals from the day it was formed.

To be consistent with this ideal, and consistent with the nearly equal number of seats held by each Pakatan party in Selangor, the proper procedure would have been for PKR to respectfully persuade each party of its position and secure their agreement, rather than trying to force it down any one party’s throat after the fact via public pressure.

Many of us constantly berate Umno for being the big bully in the BN, and understandably so. However, to be consistent, we must then also demand that Pakatan practises the principles of fairness and consultation that we expect of BN.

Had Pakatan had a functioning, formal decision-making structure, then the protracted public spat that hurt them more than anything may have been avoided completely.

Khalid not afforded due process

Not long after follows the sacking of Khalid from PKR.

Proper procedure and the principles of natural justice suggest that a show cause letter should detail exactly which articles of the constitution Khalid breached, and give him an appropriate window of time (especially considering his duties and schedule as menteri besar) to present an answer to the questions raised in the original show cause letter.

Instead, the show cause letter did not detail any articles of PKR’s constitution that Khalid supposedly breached.

The second letter from PKR in this correspondence proceeded to list out reasons for his dismissal that were not referred to at all in the first letter, giving the impression that the disciplinary board was making things up as it went along.

Khalid expressed his willingness to answer the accusations in approximately one week, but this was deemed ‘too long’ by the disciplinary board, and it proceeded to sack him from the party without further notice - in essence acting unilaterally as judge, jury and executioner.

By way of brief aside - I agree with those who feel that PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang was wrong to accuse individuals like Saari Sungib of ‘being bought’.

Saari said “they allow a motion to condemn me for my actions, which constitutes as punishment before trial”.

I agree that this is not right because Hadi had no proof, and no proper procedure was followed in determining Saari’s guilt or innocence.

Yet, to be consistent, all those who thus defended Saari on those grounds should also defend Khalid on the same. What kind of civilisation affords justice only to those people who they like (and I agree Saari is personally very likeable), but not to people they do not?

Too many layers in PAS

After Khalid was sacked, the PAS central working committee met and decided to endorse Wan Azizah and Azmin Ali as Khalid’s replacement.

In the weeks that followed, there was considerable confusion as to PAS’ official stance on this issue, and the names they submitted to the palace.

I feel that of all the parties involved, PAS is the only one which had leaders and members willing to stand up for what was right. Nevertheless, in my view, for PAS to consistently follow proper procedure and democratic principles, the party as a whole and all its decision-making bodies should have sorted out together the party’s final stance to avoid contradiction.

While no doubt politically costly and legally complicated, from the viewpoint of institutional correctness, that would likely have been preferable to lack of clarity and consistency of the stance of the party as a whole.

Yesterday: Kajang lessons - feudalism can't beat feudalism

                  

Tomorrow: Kajang lessons 3 - targeting the law, not the palace

NATHANIEL TAN is now trying to ‘insaf dan bertaubat’ by replacing his King Julian writing style with something less emotional and more mature. This includes his tweets @NatAsasi .