PUTRAJAYA’S decision to defer the amendment of article 10(3a) of the Federal Constitution and refer the amendments and drafting of an anti-party hopping law to a parliamentary select committee is a step in the right direction, said experts.

They said this is because the initial proposal will give the government too much power over a person’s right to freedom of association.

To be truly effective, the amendments and drafting of the law need to be holistically done, they added.

Lawyer New Sin Yew praised the move, saying that the anti-party hopping amendment bill was problematic.

“They (the government) should not draft amendments on a piecemeal basis,” he told The Malaysian Insight.

“It must be holistically done to ensure the end product, which is the anti-party hopping laws, is effective, empowers the people instead of political parties, and promotes representative democracy instead of killing it.”

Law Minister Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar earlier said Putrajaya and Pakatan Harapan (PH) have agreed to review and refine the legal interpretation of restrictions on party-hopping and study the repeal of article 48(6) and related laws.

Both parties have also agreed to a bipartisan select committee to decide on the anti-party hopping bill, which will be tabled in Parliament in July, he added.

The PH presidential council issued a statement pledging its commitment to ensuring the bill is tabled and passed to restore confidence in the electoral process.

The draft law is part of the memorandum of understanding on transformation and political stability between Putrajaya and PH, signed on September 13.

Bersih chairman Thomas Fann said given the initial proposal’s serious consequences, the deferment is in the best interest of all.

“Given the grave consequences of amending the Federal Constitution, especially (an article) that affects our fundamental right to freedom of association, Bersih agrees with the decision to refer the amendments to a select committee.”

However, he added, the select committee has to be transparent.

“We hope that the committee will be as transparent as possible and engage with all stakeholders, including civil society.”

But political analyst James Chin said too much attention is being given to the bill when limiting the term of the prime minister should be given priority.

“I think a lot of lawmakers are worried that the bill can be abused and that too much power is given to the executive,” said the academic from the University of Tasmania.

“That is why they want to refer it to a select committee, where they can do further studies.

“(But) I think limiting the term of the prime minister to two terms is much more important than the bill. I am not saying that the bill is not important, but priority should be passing the term limit on the head of government.”

Pasir Pinji assemblyman Howard Lee welcomes the deferment, but warns that the cabinet still has the final say on whether it will be tabled in Parliament.

“The referral is the compromise to the disentanglement of a legislative gridlock, where the consensus is to stop party-hopping, yet some quarters may see their personal circumstances being insinuated as being culpable.

“Nevertheless, to a certain extent, the select committee signifies an escalation and outward demonstration of political certainty that there will be a bill that is inclusive of the views of the government and opposition.”

However, he asked what will happen if the cabinet rejects the committee’s proposal?

“What if we have a replay of the article 49 amendment being rejected by the cabinet? We will have another gridlock.” – April 11, 2022.