OPPOSITION lawmakers are exploiting loopholes in the anti-party hopping law to switch their allegiance to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim without having to give up their seats, observers said.

They said that in the case of Bersatu, its four rogue MPs could not be sacked as that would cause the party to lose seats.

The law, passed in October 2022, is designed to prevent members of a political party from jumping ship after winning a seat.

However, four lawmakers in Bersatu have pledged to support the unity government while being in the opposition.

Constitutional lawyer Lim Wei Jiet said the law does not prevent or punish an elected representative to pledge their support for another party.

“There are loopholes. The law does not punish them for pledging their support to the prime minister,” he said.

Article 49A(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution – which empowers the anti-party hopping law – shows that the law prevents an MP from leaving a party he was elected under.

However, article 49A(2)(c) states that a lawmaker shall not cease to be an MP when he is expelled from his party and he is then free to join another.

“Simply put, if a party sacks an MP, the lawmaker will not lose the seat. It is only when the MP resigns the party that he will lose the seat,” he said.

The act does not prevent lawmakers from supporting the prime minister in their individual capacity, as the four Bersatu MPs have done.

The four who have pledged their support for Anwar’s government are Jeli MP Zahari Kechik, Iskandar Dzulkarnain Abdul Khalid (Kuala Kangsar), Suhaili Abdul Rahman (Labuan), and Mohd Azizi Abu Naim (Gua Musang).

All four said they remained loyal to Bersatu.

Last week Bersatu suspended the membership of Iskandar for four years and Suhaili for six years. The decision for the remaining two are yet to be announced.

On Thursday, Bukit Gantang MP Syed Abu Hussin Hafiz Syed Abdul Fasal, also from Bersatu, said he will support Anwar’s government if his request for funding for his constituency is granted.

Lim said these lawmakers were clearly advised on the implications so that they do not lose their seats.

“These MPs have clearly sought legal advice and worded their statements to circumvent the effect of the anti-hopping act,” he said.

Lim also said Bersatu could not act harshly because that could backfire.

“That’s why Bersatu stopped short of sacking them, and only gave them long suspensions. Maybe it is hoped that one day they will revert.

“We all know what is at play here. It (Bersatu) wants to preserve its position as much as it can without alienating the four MPs,” the lawyer said.

Plugging the loopholes 

International Islamic University of Malaysia’s Tunku Mohar Tunku Mohd Mokhtar said Bersatu’s decision to only suspend the rebel MPs was done in the party’s interest.

“Bersatu simply suspends the MPs because sacking them would officially reduce their numbers.

“The suspension can be used also to entice the affected MPs to revert their allegiance,” he said.

The political science assistant professor admitted that what these lawmakers have done was making use of the loopholes in the anti-hopping law.

Tunku Mohar said since the anti-party hopping law came into force, only DAP and Amanah have amended their party constitution.

For DAP, elected representatives who do not toe the line on fundamental issues would automatically lose their membership.

DAP secretary-general Anthony Loke said the party constitution was amended to plug loopholes in the law.

He was referring to article 49A(2)(c), which does not compel MPs sacked by the party to vacate their seats.

Amanah, another Pakatan Harapan component party, said any MP, senator or assemblyman who goes against the party would automatically lose their membership.

They said these amendments were important to prevent elected representatives from disobeying the party.

“Their (DAP and Amanah) constitution amendments are to the effect that the sacking of elected representatives would have the same effect as leaving the party.

“Thus would require a by-election for the vacant seat,” he said, adding doubts whether such a move is constitutional or not.

There is no challenge to it (party amendments) so far, he added.

With the anti-party hopping law not preventing lawmakers from giving support in their individual capacity, Tunku Mohar felt it was one of the Act’s weak links.

“Maybe the law should look into cases of supporting the other party or individual as equal to physically leaving one’s party,” he said.

Tunku Mohar said further refinements of the law are badly needed. – November 11, 2023.