GEORGE TOWN: Amendments should be made to the anti-party hopping law to remove grey areas in the legislation following the Prime Minister’s willingness for the government to open discussions on plugging loopholes in it, says a political scientist.
This would prevent the law from being used to protect unilateral interests rather than the mandate given by the people to the parties, said Universiti Sains Malaysia political sociologist Prof Datuk Dr Sivamurugan Pandian.
“When the anti-hopping law was introduced, its spirit was to prevent lawmakers from jumping to another party or throwing support elsewhere without the consent of their own parties.
“Maybe it is time to bring it back to Dewan Rakyat and make sure there will be no more loopholes to protect democracy, the people and the mandate given by the voters,” he said in an interview.
He said the “voice” of the law must be seen in practice accordingly, and the Speaker must remain neutral and impartial.
Law lecturer Dr Shamser Singh Thind said the wordings of the Federal Constitution clearly outline the differences between Article 49A(1)(a)(ii) and Article 49A(2)(c).
Under Article 49A(1)(a)(ii), it stipulates that if an MP ceases to be a member of their political party, they lose their eligibility as an MP.
“Conversely, Article 49A(2)(c) states that if MPs are expelled from their party, they do not lose their eligibility,” he said.
He said this distinction had significant implications for the six Bersatu MPs who recently lost their party memberships.
Dr Shamser Singh said, in his view, that under the provisions of the law, the MPs were disqualified under Article 49A(1)(a)(ii) because they were not expelled but had rather ceased to be members after defying party directives.
He said this was because, under Bersatu’s recently amended party constitution, it was clear that Bersatu memberships automatically ceased when they defied the direct orders of their party.
He also said the timing of a party’s constitutional amendments was irrelevant, and all members of all parties were bound by their party’s constitutions.
This interpretation, he added, underscored the importance of adhering to party constitutions and the finality of internal party decisions, reinforcing the autonomy of political parties within the Malaysian political landscape.
He cited Section 18C of the Federal Constitution, which asserts that the decisions made by a political party or any authorised person regarding the interpretation of its constitution, rules, or regulations are final and conclusive, and such decisions cannot be challenged, appealed, reviewed, quashed or questioned in any court. Furthermore, no court has jurisdiction over such decisions.
Shamser Singh said in terms of procedural matters, the Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat holds the authority to establish the date of a casual vacancy.
“While the Speaker has the final say on parliamentary proceedings, it is ultimately the courts that interpret legal and constitutional provisions,” he added.
