Should Parliament pause the anti-party hopping Bill for further review?

Question

Accepted Answer

Parliament should pause the second reading of the proposed anti-party hopping constitutional amendments for further review
Two Pakatan Harapan (PH) lawmakers, Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and DAP secretary-general Anthony Loke, urged Parliament to pause the second reading of the proposed Federal Constitution amendments tied to curbing party hopping. They said Parliament should be given more time to refine the details of adding a new provision 3A under Article 10, and to ensure the language is specific enough to target defection without infringing lawmakers’ right to contest future elections.
They asked for a pause in the second reading to refine Article 10(3A)
Anwar and Loke proposed that the second reading be paused while details of the government’s Article 10 amendment are ironed out. Their argument centres on the need for the proposed 10(3A) provision to be specific on “issues of defection,” rather than being broad in a way that could open loopholes for power abuse.
They warned Article 10(3A) could be too wide and used beyond anti-party hopping
Loke said the proposed Article 10(3A) is “too wide” and “rather dangerous” because future parties in power could make laws beyond the anti-party hopping framework to restrict MPs’ freedom. He also said the group agreed that Article 10(3A) should be refined by inserting more specific words so it is restricted to the anti-party hopping law and does not cover other matters.
They want Article 48(6) abolished and linked to the same legislative timetable
Both lawmakers also agreed that Article 48(6) needs to be abolished. Anwar described Article 48(6) as denying a person who steps down from their party the right to contest elections for five years, and he pointed to how Article 48(6) and related provisions disqualify an MP or assemblyman who resigns from contesting as a member of the House for five years from the date of resignation. They also framed the approach as keeping elections as the mechanism for returning the mandate to voters, including through resignation and by-elections if needed.
They agreed to a select committee review with a one-month discussion period
Loke proposed forming a select committee in Parliament to review the proposed amendments, with a one-month timeframe for discussion. He suggested that both the Article 10(3A) constitutional amendment and the anti-party hopping law be tabled, debated, and passed jointly, and he named Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo as the proposed committee member. Anwar said the next session, hopefully by the end of May, should see the constitutional amendment and the anti-party hopping Bill handled together so MPs can be clear on the specific meaning of what is being amended.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Should Parliament pause the anti-party hopping Bill for further review?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends