Why not anti-hudud law, Lim?
Gerakan challenges Penang CM to enact an anti-hudud legislation to show DAP’s firm stance against it
Athi Shankar, FMT
Instead of mooting an anti-hopping law, the Penang Pakatan Rakyat government was today challenged to to enact an anti-hudud legislation.
Baljit Singh, Gerakan’s legal and human rights bureau head, said Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng should enact an anti-hudud law to emphasise DAP’s firm stance against it.
He said Lim was fully aware that a state anti-party hopping law would contravene Articles 10(1)(C) and 48(6) Federal Constitution and a 1992 Supreme Court ruling.
Article 10(1)(C) grants the citizenry rights to freedom of association.
“He knows very well that an anti-hopping law simply won’t work. He just wants to milk maximum publicity with his typical Malacca wayang kulit,” said Baljit.
With Pakatan’s two-third strength in the state legislative assembly, Baljit said Lim can easily enact the anti-hudud law, especially since it would run parallel to the Federal Constitution.
Pakatan has 29 state seats – DAP’s 19, PKR nine and PAS one, against Barisan Nasional’s 11 Umno state assemblymen.
Baljit said Lim would not face a problem in getting an anti-hudud law through, as religious matters come under state jurisdiction vis-à-vis Schedule 9 of the Federal Constitution.
By passing an anti-hudud law, he said Lim can assure Penangites that hudud would never find its way to Penang.
“Lim should demonstrate DAP’s commitment and sincerity in opposing hudud,” said Baljit.
Lim, the DAP secretary-general, said yesterday that his government would table a bill at the next assembly sitting to amend the state constitution to legislate an anti-party hopping law.
Baljit claimed that Lim’s insistence on introducing the anti-hop law reflected the chief minister’s lack of confidence in facing the next general election.
He said Lim may have realised that it would be difficult to repeat the 2008 success, let alone better it.
Private member’s bill
Hence, Baljit said Lim could be trying to shackle potential post-election political frogs to safeguard his and his party’s interests.
Baljit said even DAP supremo Karpal Singh, a staunch advocate against elected political frogs, had pointed out that any anti-hopping legislation would only be effective if, when and unless constitutional barriers of Articles 10(1) (C) and 48(6) were removed.
“Can there be a better constitutional law expert for DAP than its own national chairman? If he can’t listen to Karpal, who else will Lim listen to?” asked Baljit, a lawyer by profession.
