FEBRUARY 27 — The political manoeuvrings of recent days that saw the downfall of the Pakatan Harapan government reinforces the need to enact anti-party hopping laws — federal and state.

Back in 1976, the now MP for Iskandar Puteri, Lim Kit Siang, had actually proposed an anti-hoping law that will see MPs vacating their seat within 30 days if they resign or were expelled from their parties.

It is noteworthy, however, that probably the most well-known call for an anti-hopping law was made in the wake of the failure of the then Pakatan Rakyat (PR) to capture federal power in 2008.

And perhaps not ironically, that call came from the late Karpal Singh (Tiger of Jelutong) — the long-time DAP MP known for his unstinting principled stand.

This was to pre-empt the much-anticipated crossovers by BN MPs to PR, especially in view of the political intrigue and suspense surrounding the purported vote of no confidence in Tun Abdullah Badawi on 16 September 2008.

The call for an anti-hopping law was renewed by the youth wing of DAP (Dapsy)after PH took over as the federal government.

On the other hand, opponents would argue that anti-hopping laws are unconstitutional and just as undemocratic.

For while the will and verdict of the electorate must be upheld and respected at all times, the freedom of the wakil rakyat to choose and decide his/her party affiliation must also be honoured.

In the absence of anti-hopping provisions, the electorate is always in a position to punish that wakil rakyat should the majority choose to do so even if not "immediately.”

In other words, not making party political hopping or frogging to be unlawful does not in any way invalidate the principles of democracy, transparency and accountability.

That said, to reiterate, the time has truly come for such a legislation to be put in place, nonetheless.

How should it be done?

Proposals have been made before and it behoves this article to re-articulate these with some slight additions along the way.

Firstly, the Federal Constitution might still need to be amended — particularly with regards to Article 10 on the freedom of association.

Specifically, this would mean: