MUCH has been argued about the necessity of an anti-party hopping law on the grounds of deterring political defections and restoring public faith in the electoral democracy.

If the law can achieve both without eroding our democracy, I may be persuaded to support it even if it means the sacrosanct principles of freedom of association is to be neglected.

Even if I am prepared to overlook the rights of legislators to freely join or exit a party, the law as mooted by the government is far too stringent and weakens our parliamentary democracy.

Firstly, what does a stronger Parliament even mean, and is it worth diminishing Parliament’s power just to see the end of politicians behaving like frogs?

Ideally, the constitutional and political role of Parliament is to prevent executive overreach and to not abuse its power. This may mean scrutinising the government during Ministers Question Time, participating in select committees and defeating the government in a vote to block policies.

While some may say the Sheraton Move is a political coup that derailed our democracy, even Muhyiddin Yassin’s sleight of hand can only deliver the thinnest parliamentary majority that a Malaysian prime minister was able to enjoy.

And when both the government and opposition possess roughly the same parliamentary seats, this is where Parliament’s strength to check the executive becomes more prominent.

Therefore, the wafer-thin parliamentary majority that Muhyiddin and his subsequent his successor, Ismail Sabri Yaakob, had has the unintended consequences of strengthening Parliament. This is why the political battle of the post-Sheraton Move mostly revolved around Parliament and there is even talk of a vote of no confidence.

Unfortunately, it is also the same reason that compels the former prime minister to ambush Parliament by having the first day sitting in early 2020 and the discredited emergency period in 2021.

Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the post-Sheraton Move has allowed Parliament to play a greater role in political affairs in the country.

However, the tabling of the anti-party hopping bill can potentially reverse all these parliamentary gains that the country has achieved so far.

I have made it clear in my previous writings that the bill will snatch away lawmakers’ independence and relegate them to none other than a compliant party apparatchik.

Put another way: if a private employee can have his position easily removed at the mercy of the employer with no questions asked is the employee still bold enough to question his or her employer for the interest of the company?

For pragmatic purposes, the employee will most probably toe the line and perform as instructed with no questions asked. This is what the stringent bill is about; political parties are able to punish their MPs by sacking them and leaving their seats vacant.

The law is rigid in that it gives political parties full discretion not confined to only party-hopping. It is possible for the party to sack a lawmaker for the mere act of voting against party line in Parliament in the name of party discipline.

However, legislators should not be wholly accountable for his or her political party because ultimately, he is the representative of his or her constituents.

If an anti-party hopping bill is passed, Parliament will certainly become a mere rubber-stamping institution. Parliamentary victories such as the Sosma defeat will not be repeated as political parties can threaten absentees and rebels by sacking them.

Even in the case where the government and opposition parliamentary strength is equal, the prime minister will not feel threatened or feel the need to make concessional reform so long as he is the leader of a political party.

Human rights lawyer New Sin Yew is correct when he said even the first among equals-cum-leader of the house, Ismail Sabri, can be sacked by the political party of which he has no total control.

Passing the bill will not only render a weaker Parliament, but also grant political parties carte blanche powers, which supersede even Parliament.

There is no point for parliamentary debates and consultation as the former will become a mere number counting institution, where whoever has the numbers will be guaranteed unfettered rule until Parliament is dissolved.

Aside from being the party that suffers the most from defections, the iron fist that a political party will be able to wield is an extra reason why Umno is most supportive of the anti-party hopping bill.

This is because if Barisan Nasional can achieve a simple majority in the next general election, it will not have the political worry of fallouts and defections. The court cluster that has control of Umno can always whip its lawmakers into submission with the threat of a sack.

Similarly, Anwar Ibrahim can also sack his PKR MPs for questioning his authority as leader of the opposition.

Upon closer inspection, the anti-party hopping bill benefits no one except those at the top helm of political parties. It is a truism that without the bill, we may very well witness a repeat of the Sheraton Move.

However, the political jumping that serves to define the Sheraton Move is only a culmination of the failure of Pakatan Harapan’s political class.

The lessons to be learnt should be about how parties should be more rigid and stringent in forming alliances, reassessing they reconcile their differences and the unquestionable authority that a party leader enjoys.

Institutional reforms such as equal political funding, strengthening the role of Parliament and separation of attorney-general and public prosecutor should help reduce political jumping.

There is also a recall election mechanism if the country really decides defections should be stopped at all costs.

However, whatever the reforms, I am not in favour of an anti-party hopping bill, especially when it comes at the expense of eroding our parliamentary strength. – April 10, 2022.

* Kenneth Cheng has always been interested in the interplay between human rights and government but more importantly he is a father of two cats, Tangyuan and Toufu. When he is not attending to his feline matters, he is most likely reading books about politics and human rights or playing video games. He is a firm believer in the dictum “power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will”.

* 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.