MORE than two years ago, in “Bipartisanship needed for law against party-hopping” I wrote that Singapore’s constitution has a simple provision on anti-party hopping law.

Article 46(2)(b) says that the “seat of a Member of Parliament shall become vacant if he ceases to be a member of, or is expelled or resigns from, the political party for which he stood in the election.”

The Indian constitution has more elaborate provisions in its 10th Schedule – popularly known as anti-defection law. The law has come into much criticism in recent years, perhaps because it is too elaborate.

Let’s look at Clause 6(1) of the 10th Schedule, which says: “If any question arises as to whether a member of a House has become subject to disqualification under this Schedule, the question shall be referred for the decision of the chairman or, as the case may be, the speaker of such house and his decision shall be final.”

The above has been said to give wide and absolute power to the chairman or the speaker of the House in deciding the cases pertaining to disqualification of members on the ground of defection.

When the speaker remains a member of the party which nominated him for the post, it is difficult to expect that the speaker will act impartially in cases pertaining to his political party.

Accordingly, a committee on electoral reforms and the Indian Electoral Commission have recommended that the power to decide on the issue of disqualification under the 10th Schedule should be given to the president or the governor of the state, who shall act on the advice of the Election Commission.

No amendments though have been made to give effect to the recommendations.

Let’s now look at Article 49A(1) of the Federal Constitution. It mandates the speaker to establish that an MP’s seat has become vacant. This is further made subject to the speaker receiving a written notice from any MP of a vacancy among the MPs.

It is therefore for the speaker to establish a vacancy of a seat subject to him receiving written notice. To establish is to ascertain the truth of a vacancy. https://www.themalaysianinsight.com/s/483945

The above appears to take leaf from Clause 6(1) of the 10th Schedule of the Indian constitution.

Our anti-party hopping law, as contained in Article 49A, could have been simple and concise, but our parliamentarians, in all their wisdom, chose otherwise. – June 9, 2024.

* Hafiz Hassan 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.