Let’s imagine I join PAS, contest PJ Selatan parliamentary seat in the 13th GE, and win.
Then, post the 13th GE, unity talks between UMNO and PAS surface again.
And central to these talks is hudud and an Islamic state.
I call for a town hall meeting with PJ Selatan voters to discuss this latest turn of events and to be given direction by those who elected me.
500 show up and near unanimously tell me that I should oppose this move by my party.
I then write to my party leaders and inform them that my constituents oppose these unity talks and that unless PAS immediately ceases these unity talks with UMNO, I will resign from the party and join DAP.
The party’s response : I am referred to the disciplinary committee who issue me a notice to show cause why action should not be taken against me.
My response to their response : I send in my immediate resignation and simultaneously apply to join DAP, who, incidentally, are also opposed to this unity talks and, so, gladly accept my application.
I have party-hopped, yes?
For the right reasons, yes?
My constituents and voters would approve, yes?
Accept, therefore, that there may be occasions where an elected representative, for the very best and the most altruistic reasons, needs to part ways with the party on whose ticket he contested and won.
It is the Hee Yit Foongs, the Zul Nordins and Keshminders that we want to avoid.
On who lies the burden of ensuring as best we can that we do not have to put up with those who crossover because they are seduced by financial gratifications, promises of power, or succumb to blackmail and extortion?
First, the political parties.
They need to be absolutely diligent in their candidate selection process in ensuring as best they can candidates picked have been thoroughly screened and are men and women of the highest possible integrity.
Second, the voters themselves.
Voters must reject any candidate who they may have reason to believe will party-hop for the wrong reasons.
The political parties cannot abdicate their responsibility to pick and offer candidates of the highest integrity by mooting a law that bars party hopping.
By so doing, they would have taken away from the voters, in my imaginary situation depicted above, to direct me to resign from PAS and move on to another party.
In the scenario I described above, I would, until Article 48(6) of the constitution was introduced, have had the option of resigning my parliamentary seat and then contesting as an independent so that voters would have the opportunity, at the bye-election, to stick two fingers up the nose of my ex-party by voting me in again as an independent.
The opposition parties should be talking about undoing Article 48(6) when they come to power, and not about having an anti-hopping law in place.
And to ensure candidates of integrity are offered in the next GE, they ought to be wary about offering as candidates party-hoppers they appear to be readily receiving from BN of late.
The People's Parliament 
Frankie
August 26, 2012
To expect such scenarios as Haris described is a tall order & wishful thinking on our politicians. But to expect them to hop for $$$, we have a dime a dozen of such politicians. Therefore what Haris has described might happens but in reality, it is the opposite of what is happening. We learnt from such lesson therefore anti hopping law should be considered.
Mat Bon
August 26, 2012
Dear Harris, I disagree with your view on this matter. If your party changed its position (as in your hypothetical scenario above); i believed it is incumbent upon you to return your seat to whole constituents. That is to resign and re-contest. A 500 person town hall meeting would not suffice. Now the question is, does an elected representative is allowed to resign and re-contest? The current law prohibits that and that is one of the main reason why a new law is needed. We either need to repeal the prohibition or overwrite it. This is my view.
peter ooi
August 28, 2012
Dear Harris
I like your idealism it’s what keeps hope alive for a better world and Malaysia. But polticians being politicians will always have to tread a very grey path between the ideal and the reality on the ground. If a scenario such as yours take place the moral politician whose ultimate allegiance is to the people and country (again very subjective and nebulous concepts) can just resign from his party without resigning from his seat and as an independent vote according to his conscience in parliament . I believe this is a possible route to take ?
nate
August 30, 2012
Absolutely. You must go back to the people.
nate
August 30, 2012
and not just 500
MMC
August 26, 2012
who introduced the law which barred MPs for contesting for a period of 5 years if he/she resigns?
who else but the keralaman?
Looes74
August 26, 2012
I think haris misunderstood the purpose of anti hopping law. The purpose is to force those who hops to make a stand through by election
Bro,
How to make a stand through by-election if Article 48(6) stands in the way?
Looes74
August 26, 2012
That’s why they ask bn to work together to do something on article 48. Read carefully la
If Article 48(6) is effectively removed, is there need for, or justification, for an anti-hopping law?
Looes74
August 28, 2012
Agreed
Jong
August 26, 2012
Why all the fuss?
In any election, highest degree of integrity, diligence and responsibility are expected of party and candidate. It has to be two-way traffic.
But if and when the candidate has a change of mind and disagree with policies of the party on whose platform he/she stood, then politely return the ‘seat’, resign!
To run away and frog-hop to another with constituents’ precious votes is downright betrayl of people’s trust. Simple as that. All those town hall meetings etc with constituents etc is another waste of people’s time. Don’t want to tolerate indecisive candidates, no place for them!
leong
August 26, 2012
Anti-hopping issues aside, Haris, I hold you to your word that you will stand in PJ Selatan yourself if the incumbent, Hee Who’s Done Nothing, is not replaced in the next GE.
Leong,
Don’t recall saying I would stand in PJ Selatan if Who’s Hee is not replaced.
Care to refresh my memory, please?
Dan
August 27, 2012
Haris,
Consider that an invitation la.
I once saw Who’s Hee in PJ Old Town market wearing PKR shirt with his name on it, and I had the feeling that he was scared to be there, trying not to be recognised by the people in the market.
shovelnose11
August 26, 2012
An agreement from 500 would hardly suffice. The rest whether they disagree or not, would say that they also wanted a say in it. So, doesn’t it mean going back to the people for their mandate, which the anti-hopping laws aim to do? If the majority of the constituent wants are with you, you would have no problem getting in again. In fact the scenario that you have described would only be applicable in PR, whereas within the incumbent no such scenario can be viable.
Looes74
August 28, 2012
Agreed. Just have another by election. Unless 500 members calling for the recalling of the mp
piqued
August 26, 2012
If I am not mistaken, 48(6) came about, after Sharir Samad re-contested his J.B. seat in 1988 to prove that the people of JB supported his stance of pulling out of UMNO A in favour of UMNO B.
The good doctor had I believe, fired him from his ministerial post after the 1987 Team A/Team B UMNO contest. Sharir had a personal point to prove.
He thus ran as an independent and was re-elected.
I believe he rejoined UMNO Baru the following year when Razaleigh, who he was initially aligned to, was blocked from UMNO Baru and when on to form Semangat 46.
48(6) was crafted to prevent MPs such as Sharir, quitting only to re-contest and embarrass the then under siege PM.
If not for 48(6), I believe, the same would have happened post 2008, with MPs/assemblymen quitting and re-contesting willy-nilly.
I believe most would have done so just to line their pockets.
Sadly, buy-elections in Malaysia seldom reflect the aspirations of the nation as a whole.
You are not mistaken. Spot on
Looes74
August 28, 2012
Harris,
Precisely lge’s intention. I agree that additional anti hopping law not necessary if 48(6) repealed
shakuntala
August 26, 2012
It does seem correct that Haris lays emphasis on voters feelings and their right to be part of the decision making process as to whether their chosen and trusted candidate should resign and stand for re-election, or stick to a party that stubbornly or for whatever other reason supports a generally unpopular issue, like the huddud.
Voters are the important foundation of any society whose laws are based on democratic principles. Why should the leaders of any party who themselves are beholden to the People for their positions and status ignore the Peoples’ wishes.
I say ……Power to the People and not to a law such as an anti-hopping law which would not take into account, presumably, the sympathies of the People i.e. caring voters, but rather invest it with party leaders who may not themselves be persons of integrity, as the case may easily be in this country where morals are so frequently set aside and misuse occurs, also so frequently.
Looes74
August 28, 2012
No, I believe whoever decide to switch party unless he is an independent must resign & seek for reelection. No need town hall meeting mumbo jumbo
ablogsmith
August 26, 2012
Haris, you can also remain in PAS for example but be a conscientious objector and not agree with their decision nor vote along party lines. I believe DAP allows that according to Lim Kit Siang.
I could
Looes74
August 28, 2012
I felt that moderate malays should flock into dap. Then, dap would have the bargaining power in seeking for more seats. The arrangement in Penang is pathetic with pkr holding ransom all the way
Another Anak Bangsa Malaysia
August 26, 2012
In a true democracy, I don’t think there is any real way to prevent frog-hopping.
The best us mug punters can hope for, is that changes in our elected representative’s political allegiances are done for the right reasons.
Our only redress is at the ballot box next time around.
The prevalence of frogs in Malaysian politics is probably more due to the poor choices of candidates by the leadership group rather than the weak moral fibre of the frogs themselves.
There is no doubt in my mind that whilst frogs may lack personal integrity, they certainly seem to have lots of charm and charisma which enable themselves being picked above others who may be more loyal or more deserving.
Everything I have said above applies politicians on either side of the fence 🙂
francis bondumar
August 27, 2012
Dear Haris, I disagree with your reasoning, when it cmes to principle, i belive in what Mr. Mat Bond said
bigjoe99
August 27, 2012
The way I look at anti-hopping law is that its expedient, a short-cut to the problem because the alternative solution, which is to fix the independence of the EC, judiciary and police, is so much harder to do. The truth is those that hop for personal gains can be punished by law and institutions which unfortunately in Malaysia don’t work and all messed up.
Looes74
August 28, 2012
Basically to force bn to react. Just like what Gandhi did
S. Menon
August 27, 2012
I am afraid I shall have to disagree with you too. The best way would be to rescind the five-year ban, and make it mandatory for the person to resign before re-contesting as an Independant or under the auspices of another Party.
Looes74
August 28, 2012
Yes that’s what dap wants after all
Sam
August 29, 2012
Harris, agree with S Menon. Said article MUST be repealed. But there MUST also be simultaneously introduced, an article that automatically vacates the seat when one switches party (or is sacked by the party).
“Anti-hopping” is a misnomer. No one can or should prevent hopping. It should be called ‘anti seat-napping” law. THAT is a betrayal to the voters.
I also feel that parliament must introduce a mechanism by which the constituents can initiate “impeachment” proceedings against non-performing MP/SA that will culminate in a by-election.
Another silly law that needs to be amended is the one that disallows by-elections after half the term. This “safe” period should be no more than double the maximum period allowed for the EC to hold elections (120days).
Too much at one go, Harris?
Sam,
No, I dont think it is too much at one go.
Very do-able
najib manaukau
August 29, 2012
I think for whatever reason or reason one has to leave a party, one has to resign from parliament and stands for reelection as a member of the party he wishes to join, that is if he is confident the people are behind him. Right Harris ?
Bro,
I share your view, but that is why Article 48(6) must go
dharma
August 29, 2012
the law should be that if a person hops to another party, it means he resigns from his current position and a by-election must be called. preventing people from party hopping is not democratic. if one changes his/her view/opinion of a certain party policy or disagrees with a new policy that person should be allowed to resign or move to another party. it’s only fair.