Yes, its time to address the highly debated issue on the Anti-Hopping Law - whether it should be implemented, or not.
When I first heard of this Anti-Hopping Law idea, I immediately decided I would not be one of the supporters of it. My logic would be, why prevent an easily bribed assemblyman that wants to cross over? Why prevent someone who has been entrusted with powers as voted by the people to run the coalition, finally deciding not to serve the people anymore due to personal interests? Its like insisting on using a rotten egg to bake a cake. It defeats the quality of the cake.
Then, I realized, if this Anti-Hopping Law is implemented, There won't be anymore bribing or luring assemblymen or women to cross over as they, legally are unable to do so when the Law is implemented.
But, how if that politician is genuinely not happy with the party he is currently serving in? How if he wants to cross over not because the grass is greener on the other side, but because he's sick of all the scandals and dirty tricks his team members are playing? He is trapped unless he resigns, and that would be loosing his job. That would be a devastating impact on his family if he is the sole bread winner.
Conclusively speaking, I would say there are pros and cons to the implementation of this Anti-Hopping Law; vice versa if it is not implemented.
Well, at least that's what I think. What are your views on this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment