Bersatu 6 decision risks enabling repeat of Sheraton Move, says group

 

The Sheraton Move refers to a political move in February 2020 when a group of PKR MPs joined forces with Bersatu, Barisan Nasional and PAS to oust the PH government.

PETALING JAYA: Dewan Rakyat Speaker Johari Abdul’s decision not to vacate the six seats held by former Bersatu members has weakened the anti-hopping law, says a group advocating for reforms.

Projek Sama said the decision also risks “enabling” a repeat of the Sheraton Move, which refers to a political move in February 2020 that led to the collapse of the Pakatan Harapan government after only 22 months in power.

The NGO said Johari’s decision on the Labuan seat, on grounds that the MP had a pending court case over his Bersatu membership, opened up a loophole others could exploit.

“Such a decision risks opening up a loophole for defectors to escape having their seats vacated by suing their parties.

“Projek Sama warns Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim that the opposition may return the favour by luring some government MPs to switch their allegiance to weaken or topple the government.

“Projek Sama also reminds DAP, Amanah and Umno that similar provisions in their respective party constitutions could be likewise disabled by another speaker in future,” it said in a statement.

Johari decided not to vacate the other five seats – Gua Musang, Bukit Gantang, Tanjong Karang, Kuala Kangsar and Jeli – to “ensure long-term political stability” and because Bersatu’s anti-hopping provisions were “unconstitutional”.

Projek Sama said one of the biggest flaws of Article 49A of the constitution, known as the anti-hopping law, was its failure to define the Dewan Rakyat speaker’s role in informing the Election Commission on seat vacancies.

It said the speaker’s role should purely be administrative, to confirm details of a vacancy of a seat, and not discretionary.

The NGO warned that giving the Dewan Rakyat or state assembly speakers the discretionary power to “arbitrarily decide” when to apply the anti-hopping law meant the law would not bring about political stability.

“The simple remedy is to subject the speaker’s decision to judicial review. As court decisions are bound by precedents, this would bring order to the application of the anti-hopping law.

“We pray that the courts would not take an overstretched interpretation of Articles 63 and 72 on the privileges of Parliament and legislative assemblies and abdicate their roles in upholding the Federal Constitution and affirming parliamentary democracy.

“The judiciary now holds the key to prevent future Sheraton Move-style political chaos by upholding the spirit and purpose of the anti-hopping law,” it said. - FMT