Home 
News Legal/General News Anti-hopping law won’t work, say lawyers
News Legal/General News Anti-hopping law won’t work, say lawyers 
| Anti-hopping law won’t work, say lawyers |
|
|
|
| Thursday, 23 August 2012 10:41am | |
|
©The Star (Used by permission) by PRISCILLA DIELENBERG GEORGE TOWN: A law against party-hopping will not be effective even if it is passed by the Penang government as it is unconstitutional, said lawyers. Veteran lawyer Datuk C.V. Prabhakaran said such a law went against a 1992 Supreme Court ruling. “You cannot pass a legislation restricting personal freedom. It is ultra vires. “The representatives are elected by the rakyat. What is the Chief Minister trying to do?” said Prabhakaran. He was commenting on a statement by Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng that the state government was planning to legislate against party-hopping to prevent “frogs and tadpoles” from breeding in Penang. On April 3, 1992, the then Supreme Court had ruled in the case of Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan v Nordin Salleh that the PAS-led Kelantan government's enactment outlawing party-hopping was unconstitutional. The court held that such a law contravened Article 10(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution as it affected one's right to the freedom of association. Another veteran lawyer, Datuk K. Kumaraendran, said that although the proposal was a good move, merely passing an anti-hopping Bill was “lip service”. All political parties, he said, should instead deter any act to entice members, which he described as being in “bad taste”. DAP chairman Karpal Singh, who had consistently supported an anti-party hopping stance, said passing such a law was “going to be a problem” as it had already been declared unconstitutional. Comments (1)
 Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
GST Awareness Program-Implementation & Procedure of Legal Services
Look at it this way : the restriction is not in dealing with anyone's individual, personal freedom BUT it is the misusing, the guiltily getting in and then the subsequent snubbing of that guilty person's first chosen POLITICAL LOGO.
This very act itself is a deceit and a 'cheating upon' all those voters who had been misled and deceived by that placement of that guilty face against that logo associated with that face!