In a statement, Undi18 said although the constitutional amendment was to enable the enactment of the anti-party hopping law, the amendments to Article 10 raises a number of major issues that would have long-term implications to democracy.
“The Article 10 amendment is not specific to the issue of party hopping and would provide a 'blank cheque' to any incumbent government to control the participation of MPs and state assemblymen in political parties," said the group.She was sceptical over the government’s good faith and intentions in tabling the anti-hopping Bill, saying if one were to rely on faith alone, then one can expect it to change in the future.
The tweet was in response to constitutional lawyer New Sin Yew’s comment that the impending constitutional amendment was “dangerous”. “Without amendments to Article 48, any anti-party hopping bill that forces MPs to vacate their seats is still unconstitutional.
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: msianinsight - 🏆 8. / 63 Read more »
Source: msianinsight - 🏆 8. / 63 Read more »
Source: malaysiakini - 🏆 20. / 51 Read more »
Source: msianinsight - 🏆 8. / 63 Read more »
Source: msianinsight - 🏆 8. / 63 Read more »
Source: malaysiakini - 🏆 20. / 51 Read more »