THE anti-party-hopping law (APHL), enacted in October 2022, aims to prohibit elected officials in parliament from switching parties or pledging support to another political party.

However, the intention of the APHL falls short due to its loopholes that were exploited by politicians, since the current framework does not organically oust the voters’ mandate, but on the whims of political parties.

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said the unity government was open to discussing amendments to the APHL to plug any loopholes in the legislation.

Thus, the APHL requires a few amendments to close the gaps.

First, the wordings incorporated under Article 49A(1)(a)(ii) and Article 49A(2)(c) of the Federal Constitution create two distinct meanings, which Sheila Ramalingam explained in her article.

Since the provisions under Article 49A(1)(a)(ii) and 49A(2)(c) of the constitution constitute two different results, where one ceases to be a member means, he no longer belongs to the particular party that was caused by his own action. This requires him to relinquish his seat and the latter, expelled, is from a collective decision taken by the political party against their members, which allows him to retain his seat.

Considering this, it is practical to amend Article 49A of the Constitution to reflect a better meaning that does not give autonomy to the political party in deciding the faith of their own elected members.

However, there is an unwritten rule that makes MPs vote along party lines, either the government or opposition, in any motion raised by them. This practice was adopted from Westminister system.

It also removes the speaker’s power to establish vacant positions under Articles 49A(1) and (3) of the constitution. As penned by Hafiz Hassan, for the speaker to establish a vacancy for a seat, he is subject to receiving written notice. This places the speaker in a difficult position, which might question his impartiality.

The last possible amendment is to allow the judiciary to interpret the constitution’s effects.

Amending Articles 63 and 72 of the constitution allows the court to interpret its provisions through judicial review while preserving parliamentary immunity.

While the speaker has supremacy over the proceedings in the House, the courts should also be allowed to interpret the constitution.

The judiciary here only acts as a legal avenue in interpreting the law, whereas parliamentarians still have the right to freely debate, discuss, and even adjudicate matters within the control of the House.

Considering the above, the government needs to resolve the loopholes that have been widely criticised and restore the real spirit of the anti-party-hopping law before they miss the boat for the second time. – July 15, 2024.

* Matilda George 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.