He said the party-hopping culture actually originated from “Malaya”, a term used by Sabahans to refer to the peninsula.
He trained his guns on the politicians from Kuala Lumpur who he said had “interfered” in local politics in the state, which led to party-hopping on a large scale, causing a snap state election to be held in 1986.
“If you study the culture of party-hopping, it originated from Malaya.
“Don’t only blame the party-hoppers in Sabah. These ‘political gurus’ in Malaya are equally to be blamed for interfering in Sabah politics,” Pandikar said, in reference to the 1986 election called after several defections.
It happened soon after PBS’ Joseph Pairin Kitingan had helmed the chief minister’s position following the victory of his Kadazandusun-based party at the state polls.
Pandikar was responding to a question from a participant at an online forum on “Emergency, Democracy and Rule of Law” organised by Sekhar Institute and The Vibes. today.
He was asked about the practice of politicians switching parties after an election and if politicians from the peninsula were learning from their counterparts in Sabah.
Citing a list of leaders in Sabah in the mid-1980s, Pandikar said Kuala Lumpur took sides with the then chief minister Haris Salleh, who had differences with Pairin.
“This subsequently led to the federal politicians using unsavoury means to try and win support,” he said, alluding to the massive party-hopping that took place.
However, Pandikar said that the courts in the past had affirmed that it was a constitutional right for any person to join the political party of his choice, adding that one court had even struck down a Sabah state law that barred party-hopping.
On another matter, Pandikar criticised Pakatan Harapan for not making parliamentary reforms during their 22 months in power.
Pandikar said PH had failed to amend the Dewan Rakyat’s standing orders to allow and prioritise a motion of no-confidence against a prime minister.
“As speaker then, I abided with the standing order that stated government businesses needed to be given priority by the house.
“If there is any motion of no confidence, it will never see the light of day.”
He insisted that under the lower house’s standing orders, there are no clear provisions that allow such a motion to be tabled, adding that MPs had to give a 14-day notice.
Citing an example, Pandikar said then opposition leader Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail had tabled a no-confidence motion against prime minister Najib Razak in 2015.
However, the motion was only listed in the Order Paper but never debated, he added.
“Another motion which I allowed to be in the Order Paper was Marang MP Abdul Hadi Awang’s private member bill on RUU355, in his bid to amend provisions for shariah courts.
“But it was not debated because government bills always took precedence,” he added.
Pandikar said this may change if the current or any future government amends the Dewan’s standing orders to ensure any vote of no confidence against a prime minister takes precedence over all other businesses before the house.