Daily Express Subscriber
Sign in to your account.

Anti-Hop Law is practised by other democratic countries Anti-hop law is once more hotly debated amongst political leaders from both sides of the political divide. This is partly because the 13th general election is in view - as the life of the present Parliament is due to end in April next year.

Proponents of the anti-hop law are pre-empting a likely scenario of the "frog culture" happening after the election!

The first to mention the matter was the Chief Minister of Penang, Lim Guan Eng. He said the Penang government is considering introducing an Anti-hop law to be introduced in the Penang Assembly before the general election is held. Lim must be thinking of the fall of the State government of Perak shortly after the general election in 2008 when a few Assemblymen decided to "jump" over to the Umno party, to enable the latter party to form the State government.

Lim Guan Eng is thinking ahead and must be conscious that if the Opposition wins in any of the states in West Malaysia, a similar scenario like Perak could ensue.

But here in Sabah, there is no fear that the Sabah BN government would be beaten or replaced by the Opposition. As I see it, the present BN government under Datuk Seri Musa Aman is confident that its performance in the State would be recognised and appreciated by the voters.

The two BN component leaders who expressed support for the Anti-Hop law to be introduced in the State or in the Federal Parliament are not supporting the call for the Anti-Hop law because of a fear that the Sabah BN would be faced with a thin majority at the poll; rather, they are supporting the call because at this stage of the political development in the country, there is a need for such a law.

And that they are of the opinion that such a law if passed by the Assembly or Parliament, is not against the freedom of Association by any one; rather, it would enhance the freedom of Association, freedom of Free speech etc.

The two BN leaders who have so far come out in support are the President of PBS, Tan Sri Joseph Pairin Kitingan and the President of Upko, Tan Sri Bernard Dompok.

Pairin has this to say: "We have not through any (judicial review) of the Anti-hop law and I believe there is a merit in bringing about a judicial review - because to me freedom of Association is controlled by Law.

"By resigning or causing a person to resign because he hops actually allows for the process of election again, which is the freedom of choice that allows the people to express their views. It does not hinder the freedom of association", he said.

In the case of Dompok, he supports the call for the Anti-Hop law for the same reason but he said the person who hops and required by law presently to resign as an elected representative should be allowed to re- contest at the by-election.

Other BN leaders who do not support the re-introduction of the Anti-Hop law, notably Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Apdal, said that an anti-hop law would be a restriction of a person's freedom of Association.

He said, " if any party wants to prevent its leaders from switching to another party - after having won in the election, then it should screen and reject potential hoppers as candidates before the poll".

Datuk Azizah Dun, meanwhile, is of the opinion that elected representatives are people of integrity and honesty, so there is no fear that they would hop to another party. Point well said.

What Azizah is saying is that those selected to stand as elected representatives of the people should not only be persons of integrity and honestly but also person endowed with honour!. Have we got these people at this stage of our political development and progress - especially persons endowed with a sense of honour, however?

The first person to hop from a political party (Upko) after the first general election in 1967 to another party is now defended by his supporters that he jumped because he was exercising his democratic right to have a free Association with any party he chooses?

But is he not honour-bound to stay with the party that supported him and made it possible for him to become an elected representative of the people in the constituency where he was elected?

Is he not honour-bound to stay with the voters who voted for him?

There is also a certain moral obligation on his part to stay with the people who voted for him.

The experience of the 1967 first "turn-coat" was also the start of the "frog culture" in the State.

In 1985, two PBS Assemblymen attempted to hop over to another party. Had a third Assemblyman joined them, the fragile PBS government would have fallen.

The leaders of PBS quickly dissolved the Assembly and called for another general election in 1986.

The voters realised the problem of our political system of "first past the post" and the rise of the "frog culture", that at the 1986 election they made sure that the PBS party was returned with a bigger majority in the Assembly.

It was in 1985, however, that the idea of an Anti-Hop Law was mooted by the PBS government.

The leaders, under Pairin saw the need for such a law if the function of a democratic system of government is to prevail and continue with undue interruption by the action of few unprincipled elected Assemblymen.

A research on the matter was made and it was found out that many other democratically elected parliaments or assemblies had introduced such laws and that the Anti-Hop Law was part of their constitution. Such is the case in the Republic of Singapore and many States in India also have the same law.

When the PBS government thereafter introduced the Anti-Hop Law it was felt then that the problem of the "frog culture" was arrested and would no longer rear its head.

However, by 1992, the Federal Court, the highest court in the land, ruled that an Anti-Hop law was unconstitutional as it is against the freedom of free association by an individual. Since then the Anti-Hop law was repealed.

The Chief Minister of Penang recently suggested that the Anti-Hop law should be revisited and re-introduced. He called for a judicial review on the subject.

The two Kadazandusun leaders, both component members of the Sabah BN government supported the re-introduction of the Anti-hop law.

They viewed such law as a necessity and a judicial review is indeed in order.

Perhaps some one from either the government or the Opposition might take the lead and introduce a motion in the High Court for a judicial review of the Anti-Law. In the opinion of many, it is now opportune.

Meanwhile, this is the month of Merdeka. On the 31st August, our nation celebrates 55 years of Independence from the British.

And yes, Malaya obtained its Independence in 1957 - fifty five years ago now, and that we joined in the formation of Malaysia on 16th September.1963. Sabah as a State then did announce its independence on 31st August. 1963. So the calculation for Sabah's independence is only 49 years.

However, it is normal for a nation to celebrate its independence from the earlier date than the latter - that is to say 1957 and not 1963.

The United States' Independence Day is July, calculated from the day of the Pilgrim Fathers who landed in New England,(Boston) USA.

The State of Hawaii joined as one of the States of the United States only recently as did Alaska.

But the celebration of the USA independence has not changed to suit the time and date when Hawaii joined or when Alaska joined the United States.

In the same way Independence Day celebration is 31st August and the nation is indeed 55 years old.

We also have a Malaysia Day celebration after all, on 16th September, every year. Malaysia Day is a public holiday too and celebrated throughout the nation.

The celebration of Merdeka at KK Dataran was very moving this morning (Friday 31st) and the presence of a large number of schools participating in the parade exhibition was very colourful and I am sure the school boys and girls participating would remember the occasion for a long time to come.

Indeed, it is good that our younger generation take active part at the celebration. It gives them a sense of history in the making.