Introduction

​

“Some men change their party for the sake of their principles; others their principles for the sake of their party.” Though former British Prime Minister (PM) Winston Churchill quotes disloyalty to a party as righteous, it may not be true in each and every context. 

Party hopping, floor crossing, carpet crossing, or even waka jumping  are all terms used to describe the switching of political parties by lawmakers after securing a spot in the Legislature. Critics have termed it as political frogging as well, describing their ‘hop’ from one party to another frog-esque. 

​

Talks of a federal anti-hopping law have risen since the fall of the Pakatan Harapan (PH) government. Some contend its need for the purposes of preserving long-term stability, be it politically or economically; leaving a positive impression on foreign investors; and deterring other negative repercussions. However, the real question should be; Can and will the law be as effective as anticipated? 

​

What is anticipated? 

​

To ascertain the answer, one must understand the issues an anti-hopping law hopes to tackle. Arguably, the biggest issue would be political instability. This happens as governments change from lack of support in the legislature, due to the ‘hops’ of its members from one party to another. For instance, the infamous Sheraton Move which saw a change in the Federal Government. A political coup occurred, where parties and politicians left coalitions and parties, to join the newly established Perikatan Nasional (PN). Four states saw a change of State Governments.

​

As legislators shift their political compass, voter injustice occurs as constituents do not get the representation they voted for. The PM is elected through an electoral college system, where MPs voted in, then vote for their choice to lead the Executive, conventionally their party’s Chairman. With that in mind, constituents vote, not for the respective MP but for the party, indirectly voting for their choice of PM. This was illustrated in the recent Malacca State Election, where political analyst Prof Mohd Azizuddin Mohd Sani said, inter alia, the party hoppers lost as there was no personality pull and voters still supported parties, not candidates.

​

An anti-defection law is also expected to strengthen Parliament, as it prevents larger parties from luring smaller parties, i.e. independent MPs, in exchange for rewards. Theoretically, it forces candidates to stand by their political side after being sworn in, be it being a partyless legislator. The decisions made thereafter will be for the constituency, not under a collective roof. 

​

From an economic standpoint, it would be the negative impression on foreign investment. According to a United Nations’ report, Malaysia’s foreign direct investment plunged by 68% last year, with many industry leaders blaming it on the political turbulence. A local think tank opined the same but added the overall loss of high skill jobs to the list of economic impacts.9 Umno vice-president Datuk Seri Mahdzir Khalid also admitted investors and businesses might have a negative perspective when they witness party switching.

​

Is it valid? 

​

As the issues have been established, determining its validity comes next. In regards to maintaining political stability, having such law will achieve so. This is because potential hoppers will think twice before deciding to hop, out of fear of losing their constituency. Parties will also hesitate from ‘poaching’ MPs, as they too will have to bear additional costly expenditure in the second round of campaigning. If such a process were to go through, Singapore would be a prime example of successfully safeguarding political stability. Yaw Shin Leong was a treasurer for the Workers’ Party (WP). He won handsomely for the Parliamentary seat of Hougang in 2011, before being expelled by the party the following year. In the by-election, WP was victorious in retaining the seat with a different candidate.13 The smooth, though undesirable, transition was certainly an indication of political stability. 

 

In relation to voter injustice, effectiveness depends on if an election is triggered from the law, therefore making it a mix with recall elections. In that scenario, constituents will be able to truly enjoy the democratic right to elect, choosing whether to stay with the party fielding. However, a strict interpretation, which provides a different mechanism as to how the succeeding MP is chosen, i.e. having a representative from the same party using a party list system method, may not provide the voter justice targeted, albeit still punishing the MP. 

 

Unfortunately, Parliament may not be strengthened. MPs do not need to formally join the party to support their cause in Parliament. They may simply be political ‘friends’ or allies. Such as Gabungan Parti Sarawak rejecting BN’s offer to join the PN coalition, but alternatively supporting one another with an understanding of not contesting in the other’s jurisdiction. Sabah BN contested in the Sabah State Legislative Assembly alongside their allies, of whom are not officially a part of the blue-coalition. In an anti-hopping law reality, parties can also remove or threaten to remove elected MPs, and field another candidate in the by-election if there is a disagreement. This, in fact, weakens Parliament and makes them mere rubber stamps, as they are forced to agree with the parties’ decision, regardless of their view. Hence, such law may not be effective in this regard. Though backbench revolts may work as only ministers and deputies – dubbed payroll vote – are obliged to vote in line with the government. During Labour control, Jeremy Corbyn voted against the government on average 33 times annually, yet was never sacked or denied candidacy. 

​

A negative impact on economic growth may not be necessarily true, as some propound political instability did not play a significant role in affecting investment. Vishrut Rana, an economist, said factors like the prolonged duration and tightness of the lockdown affected Malaysia’s economy more than the region.18 Having said that, a myriad of foreign statements and actions dispute so. Fitch downgraded Malaysia’s rating to BBB+, citing “continued political uncertainty”. Moody’s says investors are taking the “wait and see” approach. The weakening of the ringgit was also factored by unstable politics, said FMSOne Malaysia's Wong Weiyi. Ergo, an anti-hopping law may indeed provide assurance to our foreign investors, further aiding the nation’s economic growth. 

​

Constitutionality 

​

An anti-hopping law article would be incomplete without mentioning the case of Nordin Salleh. The legislation cannot literally be effective if the Federal Court upholds the previous Supreme Court decision and, akin to aforementioned case, strikes it down as unconstitutional, going against the right to form associations. Despite this, the Supreme Court recognised Parliament’s power to curtail the right to associate under clause 10(2). Legal experts contend so, stating the defects cause a governmental downfall, bringing instability and chaos, and thus, attacks the nation’s “security”. Perhaps the above explanation on impacting political and economic stability also warrants Clause 10(2), under “public order”. 

​

Conclusion 

​

To conclude, an anti-defection law can clearly be deemed as effective. Albeit the concerns of a weak Parliament, the benefits of such a law outweigh its inability to fortify Legislature. The nation has been rocked by Covid-19. It is truly time to restrain lawmakers from playing political games, hopping around, and eating her nation’s insects. For what better way than to do so with the hand of the law.