UPDATE - Recent check of the Parliament website revealed Anti-Hopping Bill, i.e. the amended Constitutional (Amendment) (No 3) Bill 2022 is so MUCH better - Earlier, when the post first released, a search of the Parliament website only disclosed the earlier, yet to be amended version of the Bill. Demand greater efficiency of Parliamentary website - when Bills tabled, immediately it should be up on the website. When there is an amendment, that amendment must be up on the parliament website fast.
there is
- Article 48(6) is deleted
- New Article 49A
- MPs that leave the party or join another party, after standing and getting elected as a candidate of a party, will cease to be MPs - and there will be elections. {For those expelled by the party, this does not apply]
- MPs who stood as Independent, but ...more to follow
It seems that the government is CONFUSED about the anti-hopping law.
1 - There is still NO Anti-Party Hopping Bill that has been tabled in Parliament - nobody knows the content of that law.
2. Constitutional (Amendment) (No 3) Bill 2022 is just amending Article 10 Freedom of speech, assembly and association, to now include basically a new 3A
(3a) Notwithstanding paragraph (c) of Clause (2) and Clause (3), restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1) relating to membership in a political party of members of the House of Representatives and members of the State Legislative Assembly may also be imposed by federal law.”.3. Article 10(1)(c) now states, 'all citizens have the right to form associations.' But this right is diminished by Art. 10(2)(c) that states, '(c) on the right conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order or morality.
And Article 10(3) specifically add special provisions for associations on labour and education. '(3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.'. Why should there be 'special provisions' if women workers or out-station workers or even migrant workers want to form an association to promote and fight for their rights?
The new proposed amendment is trying to deal with the rights of association of political parties.
4. Now, it has been pointed out that in the Federal Constitution, there is a specific provision in Article 48 - that deals when a MP will be disqualified - there is a specific list.
Article 48 Disqualification for membership of Parliament provides a specific list of situation when a MP or Senator will be disqualified. So if you want to add a new situation like when a MP, who stood for election as a PAS candidate, will be automatically disqualified if he leaves the party, then he will be immediately disqualified(meaning a by election will be called) - this party-hopping will cause disqualification must be included in Article 48, if not no future 'anti-party hopping' ordinary law, even if intends to do the same thing will be effective because of Article 48. In Article 48, there is nothing in the list that says or in any other situation as some future Federal law decides...
5. Not amending Article 48 of the Federal Constitution is waste of time and a possible deception of the citizenship. I expected that Constitutional (Amendment) (No 3) Bill 2022 would have solved this problem, and brought in an amendment of Article 48. Sadly, it did not happen.
6. Constitutional (Amendment) (No 3) Bill 2022, as it is now is NOT AN ANTI-PARTY HOPPING LAW. They say it is needed before a more specific anti-hopping Bill will be tabled - I thought that at this Parliamentary session this proposed REAL 'anti-hopping Bill' will be shown to us and tabled - it did not happen?
7. It looks that our political parties, and even MPs, want to still be able to 'steal' or take in MPs from other parties after GE15. It is disappointing.
8. On freedom of association, it should be guaranteed for all associations including political parties. If an MP chooses to leave his party and join another party, it must always be his/her right to do so. But, when a MP leaves the party, what VOTERS want is the ability to choose again by way of elections whether they still want the said MP who has after elections joined a different party or became an independent - that is all. The MP who changed parties must also have the right to contest again in the by-elections, so voters have the choice to elect back the same person, or choose another as their MP. That is what people wants.
9. Should anti-hopping laws cover Senators as well - of course, it must cover all Parliamentarians - MPs and Senators?
10. What about State Assemblypersons( ADUNs) - well Parliament have no jurisdiction to enact anti-hopping laws for ADUNs - the jurisdiction rest with the respective States. Has any State Goverments, noting that today State governments are under different parties - PN, BN, PH ... The fact that no States seems to have enacted anti-hopping laws means that both Federal government parties and Opposition parties may really be not interested in making any anti-hopping laws?
11. Why do MPs leave their political parties? Is it because they no longer agree with their party's stance or position on a fundamental issue? Or is it that they have been 'wooed' to join another party with promises of MONEY, POSITIONS or even maybe assurance of not being further investigated or charged for crimes committed, withdrawal of pending cases, etc...? What do you think?
12. Wan Junaidi seems to say that the approval of the RULERS are needed - so, are we trying to blame Rulers for the delay in enacting on an anti-hopping law? In any event, for a Federal law - Dewan Rakyat approves, then the Senate approves, and lastly the RULERS will have to give their assent - Rulers are already involved at this stage. You do not need the prior approval of the King/Rulers before tabling and passing laws in the Dewan Rakyat and Senate... Can Wan Junaidi explain the legal basis for his statement?
13. If the government does not want to enact anti-party hopping laws, that gives voters right to CONFIRM by way of elections whether they still want a particular person as their MP or not, then be HONEST about it... And, we the voters, will have our say come next elections >>> will we vote those who do not want to enact anti-hopping laws or those who want to do so...? THE PEOPLE WILL SPEAK OUT...
MALAYSIANS MUST LOOK AT THE CANDIDATE - AND NOT THE PARTY? IS HE/SHE THE PERSON I CHOSE TO BE MY REPRESENTATIVE IN PARLIAMENT OR NOT
WHEN THE VOTER WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE CANDIDATE SIMPLY VOTES ANY CANDIDATE OF A PARTICULAR PARTY, THAT IS WHERE THE PROBLEM LIES. Some say, put a fool as a party candidate, and he will win because the people simply vote on which party the candidate comes from...
Should we change our elections - and ask people to vote for parties, and if the parties win, they decide on the candidate? - The Party List???
Or should we maintain our system - but on a party-list for an additional 100 MPs. Not taking into account the winner's vote, the loser parties vote all our Malaysia is taken into account, and the 100 Party List MPs is chosen on the basis of the percentage obtained in the losing votes?? Think about this..
See earlier posts:-
Anti-Hopping laws - it is about VOTER rights - has it been hijacked by political parties?
People must know now contents of Anti-Hopping Bill - wrong for politicians and political parties to discuss alone, with ordinary voters kept in the dark?
Party Hopping Bill will not end deprival of voter rights, unless Art. 48 of Constitution amended - disqualifying MPs that change parties after election
Anti-Hopping laws for people - NOT for party to 'enslave' or gag further their members who are MPs? Malaysian Bar Resolution
Azalina Othman, not voting as party 'orders' is NOT Party Hopping? Neither is being 'expelled' from your party?
'Lompat Party'/ Party Hoping Motion to be discussed at Bar EGM
Selangor State Assembly hypocricy exposed if they do not enact State laws to prevent anti-party hopping of ADUNs?
Automatic Elections if MP hops to another party? If still enjoy confidence of people, they will get elected again?
New laws to restrict MPs from switching parties will not cover members of the upper house, said Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Parliament and Law) Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar.
Speaking to reporters in Parliament, Wan Junaidi said the matter was discussed by the select committee set up to review the relevant bill, but the committee decided that the law will only cover MPs.
He said it was up to the government to decide whether or not to include senators in the future.
"The select committee decided to concentrate (on MPs) first. If the need arises in the future, the government can decide whether to include senators," he added.
While MPs are elected by voters, senators are selected by 13 legislative assemblies (two for each state) and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the prime minister.
Unlike MPs, senators have no say over who gets to be prime minister.
Wan Junaidi was speaking to reporters after his briefing for government MPs on the Constitutional (Amendment) (No 3) Bill 2022 which will introduce new laws to restrict MPs from switching parties.
He will hold a similar briefing for opposition MPs tomorrow. The Dewan Rakyat is scheduled to debate the bill on Wednesday and Thursday.
On whether the law will cover assemblypersons, Wan Junaidi explained that the enforcement of the new law at the state level can only be done after discussions are held with the Malay rulers and governors.
"Only if it is agreed by the sultans or the governments can the law be introduced at the state level," he added. - Malaysiakini, 25/7/2022
No comments:
Post a Comment