SOME politicians are now talking about introducing an anti-hopping law, or for the layman’s understanding, it could be called an “anti lompat si katak lompat” law.

They are debating what it should be like, and one example given is the recall election model used in some countries.

The recall election system is a curative measure, and not a preventive one. Isn’t prevention better than cure?

Thinking of the recall system is not applying our minds to the problem, but borrowing an idea from others, or being a “pak turut”.

Why can’t we look outside of the political box and study other methods that are used in non-political competitions (elections are a political competition, aren’t they?).

If something is good for the goose, why is it not good for the gander?

Why not look at the various sporting activities and see how they resolve issues of winner/loser/disqualification as their rules are made by independent persons and not the participants who have a vested interest.

Let’s say a marathon team enters five persons in a race. One of them comes out first, but upon some breach of rules of the game during the race, he is disqualified. Who will then be declared the winner, or will the race have to be re-run to give a chance to another person from the same team to come up tops again?

No, the runner who finished second, no matter from which team, is declared the winner, isn’t it? It’s not the team (in politics, the party) that matters, but the individual.

Similarly, in politics, all the time, money and energy can be saved by having a law that says that the one who “lompat” is considered to have abdicated his post and given a walkover to the person who obtained the next highest number of votes, regardless of the political party he is from.

The “katak”, after all, has committed a breach of trust that the voters placed in him. So, if he betrays them, it should be the end of him in politics.

With such a law, political parties will have to ensure they do not harbour “katak” within their fold.

They will have to choose members based on the values they practise and not their ability to hoodwink people and win votes, “bodek” the leaders, and so on.

The political parties will have to constantly monitor their elected members to ensure that they remain upright and loyal to the party. Any of their elected members who do not maintain standards/values set by the parties will have to be jettisoned before they capsize their political ship.

Such a law should act as a deterrent to “katak lompat”.

The recall election system is a poor cure to the cancerous ulcer that has burst.

The question is, will politicians ever draw up a law about themselves that is not in their vested interests, although it is good for the nation?

It’s a weird system of law-making that gives the right to politicians who have strong, personal vested interests to make laws for their own selves!

In sports, the participants do not make rules and regulations for themselves and keep on changing them to favour them in each game, as we see politicians doing.

If something is good in the sports arena, why is it not good in the political arena, and who decides so? – September 2, 2021.

* Ravinder Singh reads The Malaysian Insight.

* 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.