Hopping means betrayal
We are curious about the stand of Pakatan Rakyat leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, who is the leader behind the scene that caused the fall of the PBS state government in 1994 and planned the September 16 takeover attempt in 2008, over the proposed anti party-hopping Bill.
Lim Sue Goan, Sin Chew Daily
The Penang state government is planning to table an anti party-hopping Bill at the November sitting of the State Legislative Assembly. It has triggered the questions of whether preventing the people’s elected representatives from changing parties is a violation of the freedom of association conferred by the Federal Constitution, and why Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng made such a proposal at this time?
It is not something new to have elected government being collapsed by party-hopping lawmakers. In the 1994 Sabah state election, Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) managed to stay in power after winning 25 of the total 48 state assembly seats. However, its members were induced and roped, and the state government fell two months later. It is a forever pain in the heart of its founding president Datuk Joseph Pairin Kitingan.
On January 25, 2009, Umno Bota state assembly member Datuk Nasarudin Hashim hopped to the PKR, causing the Pakatan Rakyat to have 32 seats in the Perak state assembly, five seats more than the BN’s 27 seats. The BN and Umno rapidly launched a counterattack by pulling back Nasarudin to Umno, and roping in DAP Jelapang state assembly member Datuk Hee Yit Foong, PKR Behrang state assembly member Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and Changkat Jering state assemblyman Mohd Osman Jailu. They quit the Pakatan Rakyat and supported the BN, allowing the BN to regain the Perak state regime.
Different people in different situations have different feelings for the proposed anti party-hopping Bill. Pairin believes that when a people’s representative contests under the banner of a political party, he or she has “sealed” a social contract with the people. If he or she changes party after being elected, it means a betrayal to the commitment. However, other BN leaders do not agree with the anti party-hopping Bill and MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek even challenged the DAP to amend its party constitution to prohibit party-hopping lawmakers from joining the party.
We are curious about the stand of Pakatan Rakyat leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, who is the leader behind the scene that caused the fall of the PBS state government in 1994 and planned the September 16 takeover attempt in 2008, over the proposed anti party-hopping Bill.
If there is no law to prevent lawmakers from violating the commitments, the elected government might eventually fall, causing the election to lose its significance.
The Penang state government proposed the anti party-hopping Bill with the hope to gain public support and prompt the federal government to amend the Federal Constitution. The general view is, the BN and the Pakatan Rakyat are equal in strength and if the numbers of seats they gain in the next general election are close, the elected government would be unstable, if there is no law prohibiting lawmakers from changing parties. Can the BN be sure that betrayal will not happen within the ruling coalition?
Therefore, there must be an anti party-hopping law to clarify that the seat of a lawmaker who quits his or her party will be vacant, even if he or she does not join the rival party.
The people’s right to vote should be prioritised over lawmaker’s right of association. Moreover, the act of quitting and joining rival parties is related to the lawmaker’s integrity and should not be simplified as democracy and freedom.
However, even if the anti party-hopping Bill is passed in the Penang state assembly, it would still be ruled invalid once it is brought to court.
In 1993, the PBS had foreseen a potential threat for the state government and thus, an anti party-hopping Bill was passed by in the Sabah state assembly. However, the Bill was challenged in court and eventually ruled invalid due to the violation of the Federal Constitution.
Similar to the restoration of local elections, lawmakers can still change parties as they like if the federal government refuses to cooperate. Such kind of democracy and freedom of association are not worth mentioning.
