KUALA LUMPUR – Lim Guan Eng (Bagan-PH) had scoffed at a Bersatu lawmaker’s attempt at justifying the party’s decision to quit Pakatan Harapan (PH) in 2020 after the latter claimed it was for the sake of the rakyat.
Responding to Datuk Seri Mohd Redzuan Yusof (Alor Gajah-Bersatu), the DAP national chairman said history speaks for itself, after the former said that critics often fail to understand the ideology and motivation for Bersatu’s defection during the infamous Sheraton Move.
Interjecting Lim’s speech during his debate on the anti-party hopping bill today, Redzuan said “betrayals” do not only happen because lawmakers were driven by power and position.
“Sometimes, they feel there is a need to understand betrayals over the long term,” Redzuan said in the Dewan Rakyat.
“At the time, when my party left (PH) en bloc, it was for the rakyat’s future, because we saw that there was an attempt to undermine the institution, take away executive power, and influence the judicial system.”
“This should be included in history. This is my view during my time with PH. There was a lack of understanding then, hence a decision was made (to quit PH).”
Redzuan did not elaborate on his remark, but alluded to supposed attempts within the then ruling government to unseat Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad as prime minister.
In response, Lim said: “If you want to justify your previous action, let history decide for itself. Siapa makan cili, dia rasa pedas (he who bites the chilli will feel the heat).”
Earlier in his speech, Lim had paid tribute to all 42 DAP MPs for sticking by the party’s principles, noting how none of the elected representatives in Parliament had defected following the 2018 general election.
He also commended party supremo Lim Kit Siang (Iskandar Puteri-PH) for being the first MP to propose an anti-hopping law when he attempted to move a private member’s bill in 1978.
“We had to wait 44 years before his effort was translated into this house,” he said.
Meanwhile, Lim urged the government to further fine-tune the proposed amendments to the federal constitution to outlaw party hopping, saying there is currently a loophole that would allow members to switch parties without being penalised.
“The bill today applies only to MPs who switch parties on their own accord, but not if they are sacked. But what will happen if they leave their parties through passive means?
“For instance, if they vote against the party line, or contest in an election against their own party members? By right, this should be construed as quitting parties on their own initiative, and they should be vacated of their seat.” – The Vibes, July 28, 2022
.jpeg)
