Judiciary Must Act On Party Hopping

---

Much has been written about the issue of party-hopping by journalists, lawyers, academics and politicians with no clear solution or remedy in sight. Talking heads and talking points do not count. Our courts have been lackadaisical, at best, to take this bull by its horns
Let’s see if I can eviscerate this issue step-by-step to see whether party- hopping is kosher in Malaysian politics
After winning an election on a certain party’s ticket, the chosen one represents only that party in the legislature as mandated by law. When the chosen one decides to hop away from the party that put him or her in the legislature, then resignation is the moral, responsible, and constitutional thing to do
This if Article 10(2)(c) of the Federal Constitution means anything because Parliament may by law impose restrictions on the freedom of association if public order, security or morality is at stake. Clearly, a decision to hop is immoral because if it is not then it condones political turncoats
Parliament has done nothing since 1957 to discourage this despicable act of party hopping. The judiciary does nothing, too, to adjudicate on this issue which affects every voting citizen. It seems our democracy is heading for the ruins
Why do our politicians seek refuge in Article 10 concerning the right to party-hop without understanding what it is saying at Article 10 (2) (c)? Surely, somewhere between the extremes and strictures of conscience, reason and purpose, these itinerant, if not errant, politicians must know that what they do by abandoning the party that chose them is immoral, irresponsible, irresistible
For sure it is depending on the reason and purpose for the inducement to hop, but nonetheless, an unacceptable political accommodation if the Federal Constitution’s provision at Article 10 (2)( c ) is still the supreme law of the land as guaranteed in Article 4 of the Federal Constitution
What is the custodian of the Malaysian democracy, the judiciary, willing to do about this dilemma that is obviously fuelled by money politics? Is the judiciary waiting for another constitutional crisis or putsch as in August 1988? Will the judiciary be willing to close the barn door after the horse has fled
Will our judges look at Article 162(6) of the Federal Constitution to sharpen their constitutional knives to take on party-hoppers that will transform Malaysia into a towering figure and a judicial beacon on the constitutional hill
Article 162(6) offers untold judicial protection and political immunity for judges to nail home the law. After all, we are reminded now and then that we have an independent judiciary
Our judges must act and not wait for law reform because an independent judiciary is pre-eminently qualified to iron out the wrinkles in the law without changing the fabric which is the legislature’s job
Article 162(6) is the key. The door is ready to be opened. These are momentous times indeed for a new Malaysia. - Mkini

---