Did Bersatu deny its 6 MPs their rights under party’s old laws?
It is a rule of construction that a statute should not be interpreted retrospectively to impair an existing right or obligation unless such a result is unavoidable by reason of the language used in the statute.
Hafiz Hassan, TMI
IN “Dewan Rakyat Speaker constitutionally mandated to establish casual vacancy,” I wrote about Bersatu holding an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) on March 2, where the party decided to add three sub-clauses (Articles 10.4, 10.5, and 10.6).
The three sub-clauses included the new clause that any Bersatu member who is a member of parliament or a state assembly who does not comply with the Bersatu supreme council’s written orders are considered to have his party membership ended immediately.
The sub-clauses became the party’s governing law after the “insubordination” of the six MPs. (The first of the six made the declaration of support to Anwar as PM on October 12, 2023, while the sixth declared the same on January 24, 2024.)
It is a rule of construction that a statute should not be interpreted retrospectively to impair an existing right or obligation unless such a result is unavoidable by reason of the language used in the statute.
A statute is retrospective if it takes away or impairs a vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in regard to events already past.
Thus, amendments to the law do not have retrospective effect.
Insubordination that ended the six MPs’ party membership must therefore be insubordination to Bersatu supreme council’s written orders to them under the newly inserted Article 10.5 of the party constitution.
The six MPs may have a basis to complain that Article 10.5 was used to take away or impair their vested rights acquired under the party’s then laws, or create a new obligation or impose a new duty, or attach a new disability in regard to events already past (their support for Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim).
The Dewan Rakyat speaker will have to establish that which he is constitutionally mandated to do, without reference to the Kelantan assembly speaker’s decision.
