Party-hopping: Reading along, under, over, within, and between the (party?) lines

This is a little round up on where major politicians stand on the party hopping issue. If anyone knows of anything major that I’ve missed, please do mention it in the comments.

[updated; 19th May 2008]

Zaid Ibrahim [UMNO Minister in the Prime Minister's Department]:

• 22nd March 2008: His first significant act as newly appointed Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department was to propose legislation banning the practice of party-hopping. Party-hopping occurs when an elected representative who was elected on the ticket of a particular political party to “jump parties” and switch to a different party in the middle of the elected term… essentially “hopping” from one party to another without the consent of the voters. Says Zaid: “We cannot allow people who contested on a particular party’s ticket, make all kinds of promises to convince the people and after winning, they switched over to another party. To me, these people have no integrity and I hope the government can formulate a special law. It’s high time that we have the `Anti-Hopping Law’ to stop such acts,”

Although generally regarded as a “good guy” (by anyone’s standards, not just BN’s), and although few would argue with the spirit of anti party hopping legislation per se, many questioned his intentions here because of the timing of the move. The allegation is that the move is self-serving, designed to protect BN in it’s time of trouble, and the hypocrisy is that BN itself had benefited from party hopping under dubious circumstances many times throughout history. The other criticism is that such a law is not practical in the first place.

Lim Kit Siang [DAP non-executive Chairman]:

• 24th March 2008: In 1978, Lim Kit Siang tried to introduce the “Members of Parliament [Prevention of Defection] Act 1978″, but clearly failed. Gleefully, when threats of party-hopping started to unnerve the BN Federal government, Kit was quick to chime in with a “I told you so“. However, he did not provide any contemporary views on the matter… he merely reminded us that he first proposed such legislation in 1978.
• 13th May 2008: Kit is expressing encouragement for BN representative from Sabah to leave the BN. So he says rock the boat… but he stops short of encouraging them to tip the boat over. He does not suggest that they leave BN and join PR to form a new Federal government (although he does not suggest that they don’t do this either… he is keeping mum).

It seems Kit Siang is playing the “neither here nor there” game. On the one hand, he would encourage BN reps to screw UMNO. On the other hand, he has in the past expressed scorn for party-hopping, although he has not unambiguously repeated his criticism of the practice now.

Nik Aziz [PAS Spiritual Leader]:

• 26th March 2008: Nik Aziz expressed support for Zaid Ibrahim’s anti hopping proposal, saying party-hopping hurts both sides. “Masalah lompat parti ini bermula sewaktu wakil rakyat Sungai Pinang, Nordin Salleh yang lompat daripada Semangat 46 masuk UMNO. Begitu juga waktu wakil rakyat Pasir Puteh yang juga lompat dari Parti Semangat 46 masuk UMNO.” He added “Bukan kita yang sokong dia tapi dia yang sokong kita”… essentially trying to make Zaid’s proposal seem like a concession to the opposition rather than a threat!

The influence Niz Aziz has on his party outside of Kelantan is hard to gauge sometimes. It’s unclear how much impact his statements on this matter will have. Of course he will never ever be challanged openly by any PAS member (even UMNO members would be very hesitant to do so!) but a part of the reason for that is because he runs a relatively loose ship, with a lot of autonomy given to the various states – so there’s never been much reason for anyone to challenge him. Nor is there much reason for anyone to really feel like they need to comply with him. They respect and admire him, surely, but I don’t really see them taking political cues from him. Furthermore, strictly speaking Nik Aziz has no involvement at all with the Federal government, he is only in State government. For that reason, his statement’s thus far are probably not of high importance. The situation would be different if he would condemn the practice in stronger language.

Having said that, thus far Nik Aziz has been one of only two major politicians (the other being Karpal Singh) unambiguous in his support for Zaid Ibrahim’s proposal.

update:

• 15th May 2008: In a reversal to his previous position, Nik Aziz now says that anti party hopping legislature is not required. He argues that such legislature cannot be made enforceable, going by the experience of the Kelantan state government. However, going further, he suggests that Muslims in BN and UMNO in particular join PAS. He adds that it is also acceptable for BN representatives to join PKR.

Two words: flip-flop.

Karpal Singh [DAP non-executive Chairman]:

• 24th March 2008: In response to Zaid Ibrahim’s suggestion that anti party hopping legislature be introduced, Karpal issues a very press-worthy sound bite: “Barisan just needs the support of eight more MPs to pass the proposal. We have 28 MPs.”

That has been the extent of Karpal’s involvement in this particular issue. He has been unambiguous: he will support measures designed to curb party-hopping. But he hasn’t “renewed the vow” any time since then… he’s been occupied with other things, e.g. manning the constitutional fault-line between elected government and the Sultanate.

Thus far, Karpal Singh has been one of only two major politicians (the other being Nik Aziz) unambiguous in his support for Zaid Ibrahim’s proposal.

update:

• 15th May 2008: Karpal renews his scathing criticism of party-hopping: “To me they are political kangaroos who betray the very people who voted them.”

Since Nik Aziz has changed position on this matter, Karpal is currently alone amongst senior politicians in his condemnation of party hopping.

Hadi Awang [PAS President]:

• 26th March 2008: Hadi Awang has characterized Zaid Ibrahim’s proposed anti party hopping legislation as only being motivated to save UMNO’s own behind. He deflects and diverts, calling on the government to introduce laws to ban corruption and overcome electoral fraud.

Although he did not categorically rule out supporting anti party hopping measures per se, he has dismissed Zaid Ibrahim’s proposal as being self-serving, thus effectively expressing opposition to the move for now.

Nazri Aziz [UMNO Minister in the Prime Minister's Department]:

• 8th May 2008: Pouring cold water on Zaid Ibrahim’s proposal, Nazri Aziz informed Parliament that the proposed anti party hopping legislation would probably not happen. He went further, expressing opposition to the proposal himself: “Even I do not agree that such a law should be promulgated”.

The disagreement between Nazri Aziz and Zaid Ibrahim on this matter is significant. It is worth noting that of the two, Nazri Aziz is definitely more senior, although Zaid Ibrahim is widely regarded as being more credible. Assuming such legislature can be crafted in the first place without violating too much of the constitution, the buck may stop with the PM to decide which of his two horses he wants to back. Not an enviable decision to have to make.

Lim Guan Eng [DAP Secretary-General]:

• 13th May 2008: In a Parliamentary speech, Lim Guan Eng lends support to the legitimacy of the existing Federal government: “In the spirit of democracy, we accept the central government as the government chosen by the people.”

That has been the extent of Guan Eng’s involvement in this particular issue. He’s been occupied with running the Penang state government.

update:

• 19th May 2008: In response to Mahathir’s resignation from UMNO, Malaysiakini has reported Lim Guan Eng saying the following with regards to UMNO’s future: “He added that the choice was between Umno moving Malaysia forward or the nation going backwards.” Note that he did not offer a third choice of Pakatan Rakyat taking over to move Malaysia forward.

Unless he was misquoted or quoted out of context (e.g. if he was responding to a question worded a specific way), I think it is very pertinent that Guan Eng responded the way he did, putting the ball squarely at UMNO’s feet. Guan Eng, in my view, continues to recognize the democratic legitimacy of the present UMNO government.

Jeff Ooi [DAP Member of Parliament]:

• 13th May 2008: Jeff Ooi expresses the belief that should en masse political flipping occur (he uses the words “hijrah” and “exodus” to describe it) that it should be quick and instant, rather than long and drawn out. He doesn’t outright defend the legitimacy of such a move, but doesn’t express unhapiness at the idea per se… merely that should it happen, it should be quick and decisive. “Or else, let the ballot box decide in 2013.”

Jeff seems to be looking at things from a pragmatic, almost neutral perspective. However, his language and tone gives me the impression that he would rather the exodus happen decisively than not happen at all. Of course, it could just be my imagination.

update:

• 14th May 2008: In a new blog entry, Jeff Ooi has pretty much declared support for en masse party hopping: “But there is a way to drastically reduce, if not totally remove, Ketuanan Umno in Malaysia. Hijrah to where political tsunami has resulted!”

Jeff Ooi is, I believe, the first DAP MP to express support for this party hopping. This is a curious development because it seems to go against the views of his immediate boss, Lim Guan Eng.

Azmin Ali [PKR Vice President]:

Azmin Ali has made many statements on this issue, insinuating that he has received sufficient support that the BN government will fall decisively. He takes his cues from Anwar Ibrahim.

Anwar Ibrahim [Pakatan Rakyat future Opposition Leader and/or Prime Minister]:

Anwar has also touched on the subject many times since the 838 tsunami, more or less on the same tone as Azmin, but today there was another engagement:

• 13th May 2008: Anwar appeared unhappy when pressed by reporters on the morality of party-hopping. He lashed back: “I’m puzzled as to why you are all questioning the morality of crossovers now. What kind of morals is it when there are unsolved murders and or when there are no investigations when someone has stolen RM500 million? What kind of morals is it when there is fraud in the election process? Why don’t you ask those questions? Those who understand the situation and realise that this (new government) could bring goodness, give their support. They are not only talking about benefits to the Malays. What kind of morals do we talk about when Hindu temples are destroyed without reason?”

I will refrain from casting judgement.