MCA leaders have been attacking the DAP relentless for proposing to pass an anti-party hopping legislation at the Penang state level.
Its leader, Chua Tee Yong, asked “Why only push for the Bill in Penang or Opposition-held states? Why did they not include the Bill in their Buku Jingga and push for it at federal level?” Chua has criticized the move as a political gimmick.
Chua could be referring to DAP's stand towards Tuaran MP Wilfred Bumburing and Beaufort MP Lajim Ukin resigning from Upko and Umno respectively to align themselves with Pakatan last month. DAP leaders were seen welcoming the duo 'defections' in Sabah.
However, both Wilfred and Lajim did not join any Pakatan based parties.
Similarly, MCA had hailed the defections of 3 Pakatan lawmakers in Perak which had resulted in a change of government in 2009. MCA Dr Mah was even appointed as a special officer to the chief minister.
Party hopping or freedom of association is a constitution right. However, an elected representative of state assembly of parliament is elected based on his/her political affiliation too. It is only to allow the representative to recontest the seat should he/she chooses to defect to another political party. It allows the people to make a choice.
Democracy must respect the choice of the people. What is wrong for both MCA and DAP to respect such fundamental right of the voters? Both parties should make their stand clear on anti-hopping legislation for elected representatives. Anti-hopping law doesn't need to apply to all party office bearers.
A clear stand should clear the hypocrisy shown by both parties.
Just like any public tender too, the winning party/tenderer should not sell/flip or transfer the tender to another non-tenderer. If such a case happens, the tender should be rendered null and void and a new tender process should be restarted.
I urge political parties to stay consistent with their stand on all social, economic and political issues. It is meaningless to only support an issue which brings political advantage to them. We have seen too many of such leaders who would not mind manipulating public sentiment for their own political gains.