WOULD any incumbent MP put a rope around his own neck? This is why the public is being fooled by lawmakers about the anti-party hopping bill. The draft law itself is hopping from pillar to post!

Is it morally and ethically correct for politicians in power to make laws to govern themselves, i.e. what they can and cannot do; how much to reward themselves; how to manipulate the whole election process by changing the goalposts every now and then to keep themselves in power election after election?

Are football players allowed to change goalposts or tilt the playing field to favour one team all the time? The answer is “no”, isn’t it? The rules of the game are made by non-players. Why? You will be told it is because of conflict of interest.

What happens to the sanctity of the principle of conflict of interest when people to whom a law is meant to apply are the very same people making that law? How on earth is this allowed to come about in a supposedly “democratic system of governance”?

When a politician stands for election under a particular party banner and gets elected, his voters do not give him the licence to change colours and sleep under a different banner where there is a gold mine! He betrays his voters by doing so, and he is called a frog, but the law does not treat him as a traitor.

In a show of response to public outcry about frogs, whose numbers keep increasing over the years, these frogs with their new masters are trying to pacify the public with an anti-party hopping bill as a panacea to stop the birth of more frogs.

The bill is a heap of crap as it is meant to legitimise the frog jumping by allowing the frogs to stand for election again under their new banner. What a waste of time, energy and money just to give these frogs a second chance. It is not a meaningful deterrent to party-hopping.

A true anti-party hopping bill should see an end to the political ambitions of the frogs by deeming them to have abdicated from politics and barring them from standing for election again.

Why point to the provision in the constitution about “freedom of association” [article 10(1)(c)] and justify giving the frogs another chance to stand for election under their new banners?

Why no mention of article 10(2)(c), which says that such “freedom of association” can be restricted on grounds of public order or morality?

Is no issue of “morality” involved when an MP morphs into a frog, thus betraying his voters? Who decides this, the frogs and their accomplices?

What is needed is an amendment to the Elections Act to the effect that any MP or assemblyman who leaves the party under which he was elected and joins another shall be deemed to have abdicated from his seat and henceforth be barred for life from standing in any election. Why is there no heart to do this?

Another amendment should provide for the vacated seat to be automatically filled by the person who came in second, regardless of the party. If such a rule is good for the goose (the sports arena) why is it not good for the gander (the political arena)? Only if a seat was won without contest does a re-election need to be held, and that too if the next general election (GE) is still a long way off. Otherwise, leave the seat vacant until the next GE.

Can we ever expect politicians in power, but with no moral values, to make these amendments to the Elections Act and save us the drama of an anti-party hopping bill?

Moral values of a nation are set by the head of government. If he can defend serious mismanagement by saying that while the act is morally wrong, it is legally right, then woe betide that nation! We are where we are today because moral values are thrown out of governance matters.

How can what is morally wrong be made legally right? Such thinking emanates from corrupted minds.

When politicians who have lost their moral compasses can no longer see the conflict of interest between their state roles as lawmakers and their personal interests, then democracy can be considered dead. – April 8, 2022.

* 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.