"We didn’t vote for her, we voted for her party!, 'this is unconstitutional', 'what is the significance of my vote", these are the constant remarks and cries of constituents when an individual of an elected party hops from one party to another or withdraws or has been dismissed. These cries arise due to the working of Malaysian elections whereby a constituent does not vote for the represented individual per say but rather the party he/she represents as evident in the ballot paper. Thus, the cries of betrayal are in sound for all the shattered promises, hopes or aspirations given during the campaigning period in addition that the vacant seat might leave the government to a minority, subsequently heading to coalitions, acknowledging undermining of democracy as the political demographic no longer reflects the peoples' intentions. Further, this situation is aggravated by the lack of accountability by politicians as these actions are without justification. 

​

Hence, it is not surprising that Malaysians no longer have the interest to vote. This can be proven by the recent survey conducted by the Centre for Governance and Political Studies (Cent-GPS) who found that 46% of Malaysians have lost interest in politics due to partyhopping. Within the last two years, multiple political turbulence that has occurred, some of which include the fall of Pakatan Harapan (PH) government when a number of MPs from Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), as well as almost all of the Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PPBM) MPs pulled out of the-then PH government, the snap election in Sabah and also resignation of Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin as the eight prime minister following withdrawal of support by 14 UMNO MPs. The lack of interest coupled with such constant political phenomenon despite being in a pandemic does definitely create a negative impression on the foreign investors, i.e the prominence of political instability as well as political greed rather than curbing covid 19. Thereby, directly affecting the economic stability as many foreign investors will tend to retreat on the basis of lack of confidence and consequently, regressing our country. 

​

Hence, there has been constant emphasis on the need for anti party hopping laws, i,e laws that imposes legal sanctions on individuals who crossovers, withdraws or has been dismissed. Currently, only state laws have been implemented. For instance, in Penang by virtue of Article 14(A)(1) of the Constitution of the State of Penang (Amendment) Enactment 2012. Despite such implementation, if such an issue were to be contested in courts, with reference to Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan & Anor v Nordin Bin Salleh & Anor, it is not legally enforceable. This is because it contravenes with Article 10(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution which advocates for freedom of association. 

​

Hence, to address the question of ‘can the law be effective?’, considering there are anti hopping laws, it is humbly submitted as unenforceable. This is in regards to the doctrine of precedence in addition that all are merely state laws, acknowledging that enforceability is only via federal laws, i.e upon legislation or amendments by Parliament. This is aligned with Article 10[2] of the Federal Constitution which submits that Parliament can restrict such freedom on the basis of public order or morality which clearly anti hopping laws encompasses as this idea was accepted by the Cabinet led by Dato Ismail Sabri

Yaakob. Despite such a welcome by the current government, the question arises to the effectiveness of future anti party hopping laws? 

​

Anti hopping laws would directly imply absolute allegiance to the party and therefore, despite having opposing or unsettling feelings with the motives and objectives of the party, one has no say till the next election. All lawmakers will be absolutely controlled by their parties and hence the effectiveness of parliamentary debate can be questioned. As a result, it will definitely become an easy passage for all government proposals, aggravating the established rubber stamp situation as currently the Malaysian backbenchers already have less to no say. By legislating anti hopping laws, there will be no 'backbench revolts' like Jeremy Corbyn but rather puppets of executives. In brief, the motives of the party will override the mandate of the people. 

​

However, the most prominent flaw within the anti hopping law would be the absence or lack of remedial actions in regards to a break of coalition.This is because, upon the break of coalition, the question arises as to whether the representative should stay with the party or the coalition? If an individual were to leave the party, the anti hopping law fails to address the repercussions of all the specificities of a vote considering that every vote is trinity, i.e the individual, party and the coalition, aligned with First Past - The - Post system. Failure to address is synonymous to the opposite of affirmation of people’s mandate. 

​

With these flaws, it would be a better alternative to consider recall elections as submitted by Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said during the September parliamentary sitting of 2021 via the private member bill. In contrast to anti hopping laws which prohibit or give a legal sanction on the politicians, a recall election in no manner has punitive measures but rather for a withdrawal or dismissal, it can only be executed through an election initiated by the constituent subjected to certain requirements. In other words, since the constituents elect, they can eject. This strengthens the principle of democracy by the increase of participation besides more accountability by legislators to citizens rather than the executive. This system has been applied across many countries like the US, Germany, Nigeria and recently was exercised last year in Taiwan, i.e. the dismissal of Han Kuo-yu. 

​

However, this system heavily revolves around expenditure as recall elections would require huge inflow of money and according to David McCuan, a political science professor at Sonoma State University and an expert on Canada state’s ballot initiative system, recall solely cost half a billion, acknowledging the exclusion of by-elections which is necessary considering the vacant seat. Hence the question arises as to whether the utilisation of tax payers money for political purposes rather than investment in merit and public goods is a sustainable action in the long run also given the current financial stability in Malaysia? Even though one might argue that its initiation is only when necessitated as there are stringent requirements, the argument cannot stretch far because then it would narrow the scope of recall election, questioning the effectiveness. 

​

Nevertheless, it would be better to adopt the recall election that establishes anti hopping laws considering the first achieves the same purpose intended without accruing much heavy disadvantages. It should be noted that any decision reached should only be concentrated upon the mandate of the people for the betterment of the nation.