It is extremely difficult to discern the sincerity of the motive in the government’s unilateral attempt to bind Opposition MPs to a Memorandum of Understanding to restrict their rights to free debate in the Dewan Rakyat in exchange for constituency development funds.

The recent draft MoU that Deputy Prime Minister Fadillah Yusof presented to the Opposition for consideration which the latter unanimously and flatly rejected is objectionable at all levels.

Firstly, why would a government, presumably with a majority, initiate an MoU to restrict the free speech of its MPs?

In summarising the key points, the MoU states that in return for equal privileges in the Dewan Rakyat, the MPs must declare their assets and uphold human rights and freedoms for everyone and freedom and equal protection against discrimination or incitement. It also stressed the need for MPs to condemn hate speech and incitement against the royal institution and Malay rulers.

The language is vague and unspecific which means anything the MPs say about race, religion and royalty (the 3R issues), can be constituted as incitement. How then are the MPs to debate?

Would an elected government representing the majority ever have the brazenness to tie the hands of its MPs, and especially its Opposition who serves as the checks and balances to the government? No credible elected government representing the people would do that but an unelected appointed autocratic government that wants to remove all checks and balances in the Dewan Rakyat would to advance its plans without opposition.

Secondly, the reason given for the MoU is to establish political stability. This is an inexplicable explanation. The incumbent unity government has more than a two-thirds majority, thanks to the MoU Anwar signed with the parties that turned around to support him. The key point of the MoU is that they support him to the full term.

That was how Anwar “got” his majority — not through the democratic process of negotiations and agreement sealed by a vote of confidence in Parliament. Anwar did face and pass a confidence vote but only after the participating parties in the unity government had signed the MoU, which means their MPs were not free to vote as they liked.

While his “majority” was undemocratically obtained, the fact is that in the Dewan Rakyat, he has a majority. Because he has a contrived majority, there is very little possibility for the Opposition to topple him and if they could they would have done it early in Anwar’s term.

In other words, he doesn’t need the Opposition, so what is the motive in limiting the freedoms of MPs for a political stability that already exists?

Unless, of course, he is not confident of his undemocratically obtained “majority”.

There is one reason why he may not feel very confident of his majority. The MoU that the parties in the unity government signed is between parties and binds parties with the expectation that the parties will bind their MPs.

Technically, however, the MoU does not bind the individual MPs. They are free to vote as they please but so far they have followed the party lines. If the issue is contentious enough for MPs to vote against party lines and according to their conscience, that may mean Anwar won’t get a majority.

That option exists for MPs but they may have to face consequences like expulsion. Under the new anti-hopping law, however, they may lose their parties but they keep their seats. It is risk worth taking to restore adherence to the constitution.

MPs need to understand that the nation comes first and in a crisis do the right thing which the people are yet to witness.

Thirdly, motives aside, the MoU is undemocratic and unconstitutional. It restricts the rights of the MPs to free speech in the Dewan Rakyat contrary to the same rights the federal constitution confers to MPs to touch on any issue of interest to the nation.

Why the prime minister will initiate a MoU that goes against the constitution is baffling, to say the least. The PM’s job is to uphold the constitution, not act contrary to it. The latter is unacceptable of a PM of a parliamentary democracy.

Lastly, the MoU is totally unnecessary. Everything stated and implied in the MoU is covered by the federal constitution. So, why is there a need to come up with another document to repeat the same issues and bind MPs and make the MoU supercede the constitution?

MPs should no longer tolerate such open disrespect of the constitution by a PM. Anwar is simply showing a lack of skills in understanding the constitution and governing according to its spirit, intent and purpose. How then can he be PM?

Considering the above there is no good reason for this MoU. If the intention is to find a way to give equal funding, there is no need for it as equal funding was a promise Anwar made to the electorate and he should just honour that promise and give it without conditions. But then, again, he made a slew of promises and he is yet to start delivering.

Late Friday night, there were reports that Anwar has challenged the Opposition to table a no-confidence motion in the coming parliamentary session starting on Oct 14 in response to calls for him to step down. He said he would approve such a motion.

The PM can show bravado knowing fully well that the partners in his unity government are bound by a MoU. If he were committed to democratic practices, he would, instead make it a rule or law to enable MPs to table a no-confidence vote and then prove his own majority by law. It then becomes standard practice to test the majority support for a PM. He doesn’t do that but boldly throws a challenge which everyone can see through.

But, this time, the Opposition should take up the offer on the condition that the PM invalidates the MoU that binds the political parties in the unity government, and calls for a bloc vote not a voice vote. For what he has done, has failed to do and seems intent on doing, the PM’s support must be tested — without a MoU.

If a no-confidence vote against him is passed not only Anwar but his unity government must step down and the proper democratic process must be initiated to find a PM with a majority to form a legitimate and constitutional government.

Until the PM’s support is tested, his position will always be tenuous.