I told him that the law minister had made the right decision when he said the government "will consult" with various quarters before formulating such an anti-defection law. Consulting stakeholders is part of good governance.

My friend then asked if other countries had such a law. I told him, "Many, including our southern neighbour Singapore." I also told him that Penang also had such a law, which mirrored, in part, the law in Singapore.

In Penang, Article 14(A)(1) of the state constitution states that a member of the 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 whatsoever to be a member of that party, or;

(b) Having been elected as an independent but later joins a political party.

In Singapore, Article 46 (2) of the Singapore Constitution states that "the seat of a member of parliament shall become vacant if he (b) he ceases to be a member of, or is expelled or resigns from, the political party for which he stood in the election.

Late last month, Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi said MPs who wished to hop to another party should be allowed to do so, but they must seek a fresh mandate from their voters through a by-election before continuing to serve in the constituency after their defection.

He added that an anti-defection law was necessary so that taxpayers money, which is channelled into the general election, did not go to waste. I agree.

A report by Kenneth Janda on the "Laws against party switching, defecting, or floor-crossing in national Parliaments" in 2009 revealed that out of 193 countries that he studied, 14 per cent of 36 older democracies, 24 per cent of 54 newer democracies, 33 per cent of 58 semi-democracies and nine per cent of 45 non-democratic countries had anti-defection laws, making it a grand total of 41 countries (out of 193 countries) having such law to regulate the conduct of their MPs.

According to Janda, an anti-hopping legislation will bring about the following results:

PREVENT larger parties from gaining control of government through seducing members of smaller parties with promises of governmental or financial gifts; and,

REDUCE party fragmentation from members leaving to create new parties.

"In other words, by banning parliamentary party defections, there would be less corruption, more party stability and more meaningful party labels with less personalism in politics," Janda added.

Article 10 of the Federal Constitution has four Clauses. Clause (1)(c) guarantees "all citizens" their right to "form associations". Clause (2) allows Parliament to impose on the right conferred under Clause (1)(c) "such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order or morality".

Under Clause (2), the right conferred under Clause (1)(c) "may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education".

In our country, party-hopping or defection had caused the fall of several state governments and earlier this year, the fall of the Pakatan Harapan federal government.

If our MPs, either acting on their own or acting in concert with others, defect from their own party knowing that such conduct will bring about the downfall of a federal or a state government, bringing about chaos and instability, would not such action be deemed to have a negative impact on "the security" of the nation or be deemed contrary to "public order or morality" within the meaning of Clause (2) of Article 10?

Wouldn't a law banning party-defection be then within the contemplation of Clause (2) — objective being to preserve security, public order or morality?

The writer, a former federal counsel at the Attorney-General's Chambers, is deputy chairman of Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War

https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnists/2020/07/610482/anti-defection-law-necessary