Critics argue that the assertion that Parliament need not dissolve if a party leaves the government ignores the fundamental spirit of coalition-based mandates. When a party like DAP joins a government, they do so with the expectation that their supporters' interests will be represented through their presence in the cabinet. If that party withdraws, the original agreement that formed the government is effectively broken. Maintaining power in such a scenario could be perceived as a move to cling to office rather than a reflection of the current political reality.
There is a significant risk that a government operating without the full support of its original coalition partners will lack the moral authority to pass major legislation. If a key party leaves, the administration may become a 'lame duck,' struggling to implement its agenda or facing constant obstruction from within the legislature. This leads to a loss of public trust, as voters may feel that the government they elected has fundamentally changed its character without their input.
Furthermore, the argument that a cabinet reshuffle is sufficient ignores the potential for a deeper crisis of confidence. If the political landscape has shifted to the point where a major partner feels compelled to leave, it suggests that the coalition's core policies are no longer aligned. Attempting to patch over these cracks with new appointments may only delay an inevitable collapse, leading to a period of prolonged uncertainty that is far more damaging than a clean break and a fresh mandate from the people.
From a democratic accountability perspective, the most transparent way to resolve a major coalition split is to return to the electorate. By holding an election, the government allows the public to decide which parties and policies they want to support in the new environment. Relying on technicalities to avoid a vote can be seen as an attempt to bypass the democratic process, which ultimately weakens the legitimacy of the administration in the eyes of the citizens.