FOR months, the anti-party hopping bill has been discussed everywhere, from the highest decision-making committees of every political party, to Parliament, parliamentary select committees and even the cabinet, but to no avail. 

A voter’s right in terms of their individual vote value, their right of self-determination and the basis of democracy, is being undermined. 

To be fair, only a fraction of the MPs – 39 of them, to be exact – have “hopped” since Pakatan Harapan won the election in 2018.

That accounts for just some 17.5% of the total elected representatives in the Parliament. 

The number is proportionately smaller at state government level. 

Unfortunately, the instability brought about by this small number resonates across not only our august houses, but the country as a whole.

We have seen half a dozen states change governments since 2018, and the federal government has collapsed, twice. 

The lethargy caused by this has induced political numbness and people no longer desiring to even participate in the democratic process.

Why should they? Their vote for a particular party – with the understanding of co-operation, a choice of set leaders, and the assumption that they would have a chance to govern a full term – has been proven futile. 

It is a nightmare for policy executors, businessmen and civil servants, as plans get thrown in disarray and new, ‘different’ plans are hastily put together, desperate to distinguish themselves from the old, often more to indulge personality cults rather than the greater public good.

The people ultimately lose, and continue to pay the price for collective political common selfishness. 

Singapore, though deemed a far less politically exciting country than ours, has amended its constitution to reflect this, and this law has been in effect since 1963.

Unlike us, the island state has never really had a need to use it, other than perhaps a WP leader, Yaw Shin Leong’s scandal in 2012. 

Article 46(2)(b) of the Singapore Constitution kicked in. 

It gave the power back to Hougang SMC (single member constituency) and the Workers’ Party retained the seat. It did not change the power equation or government in any way.  

This was the only time the law was actually used, and though it did not affect control of government at any level, the dignity and democratic value of the vote was preserved. 

In our case, the wording of the amendment is still being debated, despite the many transgressions of democracy, from as early as PBS losing Sabah twice due to defections. 

There is really no need to over-analyse the situation, and given the volatile politics we are experiencing, it would be prudent to firm up some law, imperfect as it may be, rather than have no protection against party hopping at all. 

The Federal Constitution is a living document, and is amenable to change, hence the term amendments. 

Though on paper, we are governed by democracy, the reality is the power of the executive is wielded every day without our consent, as Lord Hailsham termed it, an elective dictatorship. 

Of the three organs of government in which power is wielded, only one is directly appointed by the people, and even of that, the power to interpret and execute those laws are effectively not in the hands of the elected. 

It would not be an exaggeration to say, most committees wield advisory and soft power, a means of ameliorating the hard lines of unelected law-making.  

This compounds the tragedy of even that little say, that people have in how they are ruled, and who rules them, is taken away from them. – June 1, 2022.

* Emmanuel Joseph firmly believes that Klang is the best place on Earth, and that motivated people can do far more good than any leader with motive.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.