Why have anti-hopping law in the first place?

The government is open to discussions on making legal amendments to plug any loopholes in the anti-party hopping law. Previously, we proposed that anyone rejected by their party should vacate their seat, but it was not agreed upon by the government then. Because at that time, Umno members were joining their party. So for me, if we want to amend it, we can discuss it so that no one is exempt.

The federal government of today must do some soul-searching after it effectively undermined, degraded and tarnished the anti-party hopping law which was only introduced two years ago.

Parliament passed the Bill in July 2022, amending the Federal Constitution to include clauses against political defection. The law came into effect on October 5, the same year.

This was a bipartisan response to the so-called ‘Sheraton Move’ in 2020 where defections triggered the collapse of the Pakatan Harapan (PH) government.

A total of 209 MPs voted in favour of the Bill, with 11 absent, exceeding the required two-thirds majority needed for a constitutional amendment.

The Bill was crafted following numerous rounds of discussions and engagement involving party leaders, MPs from Malaya, Sabah, and Sarawak, academics, non-governmental organisations, and various community associations.

In essence, the law that is now in effect was agreed to and signed off by all political parties. It was also part of the memorandum of understanding signed between former prime minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob and the PH coalition.

From 2020 onwards, there was a wave of discontent among Malaysians against political frogs, so much so that it even became some sort of political movement where certain parties campaigned in elections on that sentiment.

PH, the main movers of the anti-party hopping Bill, must respect and uphold the law, even when it does not favour them politically.

To put it bluntly, PH can’t have it both ways. You wanted this and so did everyone else. Malaysia needed this law.

But what is frustrating is the fact that at the first attempt of exercising this law to deal with the six MPs who defected from Bersatu and pledged their support to the prime minister, the law was relegated to an afterthought as if it doesn’t exist.

It was as if the process of crafting the anti-party hopping bill, the engagements with political parties, experts and civil societies as well as obtaining public support for the law was an exercise in futility.

In the case of the six MPs, Speaker Tan Sri Johari Abdul said that the seat will not be vacated, triggering a flurry of responses not only from Bersatu and Perikatan Nasional (PN), condemning the decision but also from the civil societies.

Bersatu, after its six MPs went rogue, amended its constitution whereby the membership of Bersatu state assemblymen or MPs who disobeyed party orders will be ceased automatically.

This is in line with the anti-party hopping law where Article 49A (1)(a) spelt out that MPs should vacate their seats in the case where they resign from a political party or cease to be members of that political party.

Johari’s argument was that the termination of the memberships of the six Bersatu MPs went against the Federal Constitution, the Dewan Rakyat’s standing order, and the Houses of Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Act 1952.

“All three legislation have guaranteed privileges (such as the) freedom of speech, debate and voting to MPs.

“Therefore, I find that there is no vacancy of seats under Article 49A(1) of the Federal Constitution,” said the Speaker in a letter to Bersatu’s chief whip Roland Kiandee.

However, former Speaker Tan Sri Azhar Harun who is Johari’s predecessor argued otherwise, saying that the law is clear and does not need to interpreted further.

He also clarified that the duties of the speaker to establish casual vacancy is merely housekeeping – which is to verify whether a seat is indeed vacant as its incumbent’s is no longer a party member.

“If it was me, I would have simply contacted the secretary-general of that party and ask whether the MPs who went rogue are no longer party members.

“The Speaker is not the court and there was never any intention for the Speaker to be an arbitrator,” he said.

Rights group Tindak Malaysia warned that the Speaker’s decision to allow the former Bersatu MPs to keep their seats would encourage more violations of the anti-party hopping law,

Similarly, Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (BERSIH) raised concerns on the effectiveness of the law in achieving its original goal of ensuring political stability in the country, saying the decision was a missed opportunity to strengthen the law.

“The Speaker’s decision will create legal loopholes and erode public confidence in the sanctity of the Federal Constitution and the rule of law, principles that underpin the Rukun Negara,” it said.

The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of New Sarawak Tribune.