KUALA LUMPUR – Datuk Seri Mukhriz Mahathir (Jerlun-Pejuang) has raised the question on whether party loyalty is being placed above honouring the people’s mandate when it comes to the anti-hopping bill.
During his debate to amend Article 10 of the federal constitution today, he spoke about his personal experience during the Sheraton Move in 2020, where the majority of Bersatu members exited the Pakatan Harapan (PH) coalition to form the Perikatan Nasional (PN) administration.
However, unlike the rest of Bersatu, Mukhriz, his father Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (Langkawi-Pejuang) and four others opted to not follow but to honour the mandate given to PH.
“When an entire party hops, is that not a betrayal to the public mandate? Why should MPs who do not want to jump, who do not want to betray the public mandate, be the ones affected?
“There were six of us from Bersatu who wanted to honour the public mandate,” said Mukhriz on the move that later led to the collapse of the PH government.
He also recalled how Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin (Pagoh-Bersatu) was ousted when an Umno faction consisting of 15 MPs led by its party president Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi (Bagan Datuk-BN) retracted their support even though 27 Umno MPs still backed Muhyiddin.
Mukhriz questioned, under such a scenario, who is the one that is not toeing the party line, whether the president and his minority or the rest of the MPs, representing the association’s majority in the lower house.
Another possible conundrum he observed is when a federal legislator and his or her voters disagree with the actions of his or her party leadership, especially if they are involved in kleptocracy or corruption, but the party is not taking disciplinary action against the culprit.
“If the party is corrupted, kleptocratic, and the party takes no action, but the voters are beginning to doubt the party, and then pressured the MP to hop… under this scenario, would the MP who is trying to stand up for integrity and principles be forced to vacate his or her seat?”
Mukhriz said the special committee must carefully look into this possibility to avoid such a situation.
Earlier, Pejuang chairman Dr Mahathir argued that the definition of party-hopping or party-hopper must be tailored – on the hopper and the intention – while not disrupting the basic rights of Malaysians to associate.
“We need to focus on senators, assemblymen and MPs. And also, be specific in times where it was done deliberately to collapse a government. Sometimes, maybe these reps have been offered high posts like ministers or being offered money to jump.
“Hopping has caused our country to become politically unstable.
“We don’t know if the prime minister really has the mandate. That’s why there are countries that don’t recognise our prime minister and didn’t give him due treatment, because he is a backdoor prime minister.”
He said this is the reason the anti-hopping law is critical, but noted that it must be limited to politicians and not extended to the general public.
“Therefore, it is important for the law to be looked at and studied comprehensively, seeing that it is incomplete at the moment and open to abuse.” – The Vibes, April 11, 2022
.jpeg)
