Can vague wording in amendments lead to abuse of power?

Question

Accepted Answer

Vague Wording in Proposed Amendments Risks Abuse of Power

The proposed constitutional amendment aimed at preventing party hopping carries a significant risk of abuse due to its vague wording, potentially undermining parliamentary democracy. Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) chief coordinator Zaid Malek cautioned that the amendment, as currently formulated, does not offer a concrete definition of "anti-hopping" but broadly refers to party membership, leaving it open to misinterpretation and manipulation. This ambiguity could empower any government to enact laws that disqualify elected representatives on arbitrary technicalities, posing a particular threat to opposition parties.
Erosion of Freedom of Association

The proposed amendment to Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, which governs freedom of association, is seen by civil society groups as a serious derogation from a fundamental constitutional principle. Zaid Malek articulated that any authority to amend this article should ultimately rest with the voters, who are the primary arbiters of their elected representatives' actions. By potentially nullifying the protection of freedom of association for MPs and state assemblymen, the amendment could compel elected officials to vote strictly along party lines, irrespective of their personal principles or the constituents' desires, out of fear of repercussions.
Potential for Undermining Parliamentary Democracy

The imprecise language of the proposed provision creates a dangerous precedent where a simple parliamentary majority could be used to disenfranchise elected members. Zaid Malek highlighted that this scenario would be especially detrimental to the Opposition, placing them at the mercy of the ruling party. The fear is that future governments could leverage this amendment to disqualify opposition figures on flimsy grounds, thereby consolidating power and weakening democratic checks and balances.
Calls for Clearer Definitions and Compromise

Bersih 2.0, another civil society organization, also voiced strong objections to the proposed amendment, echoing concerns about the fundamental liberty of freedom of association. They proposed a more limited version of an anti-party hopping law that excludes expulsion from a party from being defined as party-hopping. Bersih suggested that a new Article 49A should be passed with a definition that specifically excludes expulsion, acknowledging that this compromise might be necessary given disagreements on the scope of such legislation. The organization also suggested that states should be empowered to explore and enact their own anti-hopping instruments, rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all solution from the federal level.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Can vague wording in amendments lead to abuse of power?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends