JUNE 22 ― In “No retrospective effect unless a contrary intention appears”, I wrote that it is a rule of construction that a statute should not be interpreted retrospectively to impair an existing right or obligation, unless such a result is unavoidable by reason of the language used in the statute.

A statute is retrospective if it takes away or impairs a vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in regard to events already past.

So, amendments to the law do not have retrospective effect.

A day earlier in “Dewan Rakyat Speaker constitutionally mandated to establish casual vacancy without reference to state legislative assembly speaker’s decision”, I wrote of Bersatu supreme council member Datuk Wan Saiful Wan Jan who said that Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Johari Abdul must declare vacancies for the seats held by the six Bersatu lawmakers as the party had decided that the MPs had lost their party memberships for insubordination.

I also wrote that insubordination that ceases the six MPs’ party membership must be insubordination to Bersatu supreme council’s written orders to them under the newly inserted Article 10.5 of the party constitution.

The six MPs may have a basis to complain that Article 10.5 has been used to take away or impair their vested rights acquired under the party’s then laws, or create a new obligation or impose a new duty, or attach a new disability, in regard to events already past (their support for Anwar).

The Dewan Rakyat Speaker will have to establish that, which he is constitutionally mandated to do without reference to the Kelantan SLA Speaker’s decision. 

https://www.malaymail.com/news/what-you-think/2024/06/22/did-bersatu-take-away-or-impair-their-six-mps-vested-rights-acquired-under-the-partys-then-laws-hafiz-hassan/140906