PM, here's how to save the anti-hopping bill

As worried by some of us, the anti-hopping law may be derailed due to internal objections from the cabinet. Bersatu and PAS apparently stated their principled support for it but dragged on the details.

Now it has been deferred.

Earlier news suggested that Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob would call for a meeting of MPs and senators on Sunday before the bill (which also contains the amendment to introduce tenure limits for prime ministers) is tabled on Monday.

Can Ismail Sabri, by buying time, build intra-government consensus? Will he not ultimately push Pakatan Harapan to terminate the MOU (memorandum of understanding) and shorten his prime ministership?

Ismail Sabri should boldly allow a conscience/free vote for government MPs – so that Bersatu and PAS parliamentarians can vote against the bill if they so wish – but have the bill passed, nonetheless.

Amending the Federal Constitution needs two-thirds of all 222 members (including the two vacated seats), or 148 seats. And the anti-hopping bill now has at least 155 votes – Harapan’s 90, BN’s 42, GPS’s 18, Pejuang’s 4 and Muda’s 1 – or seven votes more than the two-thirds majority.

The likely opponents to some of the clauses would likely be Bersatu’s 32 parliamentarians and PAS’ 17, possibly with some independent MPs and some opposition parties consisting of other parties’ turncoats.

Definitional disputes

Let us first debunk the so-called definitional disputes used by some politicians to delay the tabling of the anti-hopping bill.

Anti-hopping laws basically have the same template, with minor differences in some specifics. In fact, an anti-hopping law is so simple that it often just appears as a few constitutional provisions and not even an Act.

Here is the gist of Penang’s anti-hopping law (Article 14A(1) of Penang State Constitution), enacted in 2012:

“…. A member of the Legislative Assembly shall vacate his seat if

(a) Having been elected as a candidate of a political party, he resigns or is expelled from, or ceases for any reason whatever to be a member of that party; or

(b) Having been elected otherwise than as a candidate of a political party, he joins a political party.”

Replace “the Legislative Assembly” with “Dewan Rakyat”, you will almost have the federal anti-hopping law.

So, what to dispute in definition?

The first is “is expelled from” in part (a). If MPs expelled are spared from seat vacating, defectors will stay back and sabotage their parties until getting sacked, and the anti-hopping law becomes a toothless tiger.

Yes, this may be abused by party leaders to control MPs or eliminate rivals by sacking them or threatening to do, but that’s how anti-hopping law works. If you are not happy, then go for the anti-hopping recall law. Simple as that.

The second is the independent MPs in part (b). Some may want to be able to contest and win as independent candidates then join the party with the highest offer. Again, it is a question of accepting it or not.

Vote on every clause

Instead of delaying it once and again, the bill should be put on a conscience vote, not only as a package at the Second and Third Readings, but also on each of its clauses in the Committee stage. This allows debates in the open and avoid unnecessary compromises.

MPs who disagree with the inclusion of “expulsion” in the party-hopping definition can table a motion to remove “is expelled from”. Likewise, MPs who want to exclude independent MPs from the anti-hopping law’s coverage can move to remove part (b).

Would these motions get carried with a two-thirds majority? Or can they at least withhold 75 votes (one-third plus one) to block the original clauses?

In the conventional thinking that the government must have every vote from its bench, then even a few MPs can have enormous bargaining power to force concessions.

That’s the danger of dependence on a voting bloc – too much horse-trading behind the scenes often produces ineffective or incoherent laws or policies. In contrast, conscience or free votes free both the government and MPs.

Breaking the old paradigm

The delay on the anti-hopping law is exactly caused by this old idea that all government MPs must agree on every government bill or the government has cracked.

As Ismail Sabri presides on Malaysia’s second post-election coalition federal government, and many in his party can’t wait to declare that his government is over, he has tried to accommodate Bersatu and PAS on the anti-hopping law.

It’s time for him to be his own man. He should prove his leadership mantle by passing the anti-hopping law with neither breaking his own government nor being held at ransom by his allies.

Conscience voting on bills held back by a small majority will be a good departure to block voting, the old norm associated with one-coalition dominance and subsequently two-coalition antagonism.

In the fluid multiblock competition we are now in, the government does not have to win every vote and the government may win some votes with the support of some opposition MPs and despite the objection of some government MPs.

The Sosma defeat has proven that the government is as strong as before. The anti-hopping bill can be another milestone in our parliamentary culture that the government can command a two-third majority despite not having full support from the government bench.

If he can prove that his government commands a two-majority – the first since 2008 – on common agenda agreed by Parliament, he deserves to stay on till full term, whatever his party thinks.

And for Malaysia, we will win more than an anti-hopping law. With conscience voting as a new norm for selected issues, we will have a stronger Parliament and more sophisticated multiparty competition.

Sophisticated opposition

However, for Ismail Sabri to go for a conscience vote on the anti-hopping law, he may need an undertaking from the opposition that a voting division in the government bench would not be exploited against his government.

Instead, the anti-hopping law’s passing would be celebrated as a common victory for all parties supporting it, as per the spirit of the MOU, and for Malaysia’s democracy.

In other words, not just the government, the opposition also needs to be sophisticated to embrace multipartyism.

In this light, Harapan should seek an emergency meeting of the MOU steering committee to propose or support a conscience vote on the anti-hopping law on Monday without any more delay. - Mkini

---

WONG CHIN HUAT is an Essex-trained political scientist working on political institutions and group conflicts. Mindful of humans' self-interest motivation while pursuing a better world, he is a principled opportunist.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.