Penang’s proposal to enact an anti-hopping law is not about Freedom of Association but Breach of Public Trust
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Abdul Aziz is wrong for saying that the Penang government's proposal to enact an 'anti-hopping’ law, saying it goes against the principle of freedom of association with any party guaranteed by the federal constitution. Penang’s proposed amendment to the state constitution to approve an anti-hopping law is not about freedom of association but about breach of public trust as well as betrayal of basic principles of representative democracy and accountability.
After all BN does not provide full freedom of association whens it banned certain organisations and even certain trade unions from being established. Freedom of association gurantees the right of any citizen to leave or join any political party he or she desires.
However, for any elected representative elected on a party ticket to hop or cross over is an immoral, unethical and unprincipled act that shows utter contempt for the democratic choice of their voters. If they were elected on the party they represent, they should resign their seat and seek a fresh mandate from the people if they chose to leave the party platform on which they were elected on. Democracy, accountability and ethical conduct demands that the voters be given another opportunity to pass judgment whether such a decision by the elected representative to hop over is acceptable or not.
MCA President Chua Soi Lek is wrong for alleging that DAP is inconsistent for accepting 2 former UMNO members, ex-Pulau Manis assemblyperson Datuk Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz and blogger Aspan Alias earlier this year. Both were exercising their right of freedom of association in joining the DAP. As both were not elected representatives, the issue of breach of public trust or betrayal of democratic principles does not arise.
However Nazri is correct in saying that the Supreme Court has ruled that any anti-hopping law passed is unconstitutional in the 1992 case of Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan v. Nordin Salleh. The Penang state government believes that the court judgment was wrongly decided and should be revisited. There is ample precedent that allows the Federal Court to reverse a previous decision that was wrongly decided.
In the case of Adorna Properties v Boonsom Boonyanit (2000), the Federal Court (headed by Chief Justice Eusoffe Chin) allowed Mdm Boonyanit to be deprived of her land by the forgery of a fraudster who had sold her land to a third party. For ten years, this decision caused heartache and despair as property owners found that they had no way to recover their land if it was sold by fraudsters to third parties without their consent. Finally, in 2010, the Federal Court in the case of Tan Ying Hong reversed its decision in Boonsom Boonyanit, holding that the previous decision had involved an error that was “so obvious and blatant”.
Just as the Federal Court has reviewed and reversed its decision in the case of Boonsom Boonyanit, which allowed landowners to be cheated of their land by fraudsters, so it should also review and reverse the decision in Nordin Salleh, which has allowed the voters of Malaysia twice to be cheated of their choice of State Government by political fraudsters. The time has come for the right to choose the government to be returned to the people of Malaysia.
