OCTOBER 24 ― After a lot of talk, we are now approaching the point where the Opposition will try to push for a no-confidence motion in Parliament against the prime minister.
On Thursday the motion was filed by Opposition leader Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail. The spotlight is now on the Speaker, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia: Will he allow such a proposal to be heard?
In this matter we are in uncharted waters. The Standing Orders of Parliament does not seem to mention anything on no-confidence motions and how such motions should be handled.
(As an aside, the decision by the Opposition to withdraw Petaling Jaya Selatan member of Parliament Hee Loy Sian’s no-confidence motion application so that Datuk Seri Wan Azizah can do so later is baffling. What’s the difference? Are we so desperate for personal cookie points now?)
As per the Constitution, then, Parliament is empowered to make its own procedures on the matter. As things stand, it would seem that no-confidence motions would, at this point, be subject to normal Parliament procedures.
To recap, applying to move a motion in Parliament requires written notice submitted during working hours ― seven days in advance for Cabinet members and 14 days for others.
However, an important point to consider is that any member of Parliament may ask for an emergency motion of public importance to be moved in Parliament with a 24-hour notice.
The Speaker then has full discretion to approve or reject such an application if he is not satisfied that “the matter is definite, urgent and of public importance”, according to the Standing Orders.
That means that all things considered, existing procedures while not explicitly referring to no-confidence motions allow for such to be filed and covers their handling. But ultimately the decision rests on the Speaker’s discretion.
On the facts available to the public, it should not take much explanation to convince the Speaker that a no-confidence motion carries much urgency ― never before has an incumbent prime minister come under such grave allegations which had not been satisfactorily explained.
To recap, we have by now established the fact that the prime minister received “donations” amounting to RM2.6 billion in his private bank accounts, feebly explained as political contributions by a very kind soul in the Middle East.
The MACC Act 2009 is very, very clear on this: It is an offence for any public officer to use his office for any sort of gratification, which the Act defines as money, donation, gift, loan, fee, reward valuable security, property or interest in property being property of any description whether movable or immovable, financial benefit, or any other similar advantage.”
The Act further requires that any public officer suspected of committing such an offence must prove that any such gratification is not a bribe in order to be found innocent. By any reckoning, the prime minister must be considered a public officer.
Now this issue would, in many democratic countries, be more than sufficient to allow such a motion to be heard. In many countries it would not have gone unresolved for so many months either.
The question now is whether the Speaker will see the unmistakeable urgency in the matter whereby the integrity of the highest public office in the country had been under grave questions for months.
On Wednesday, he said the opposition bloc needs to convince him that they have sufficient members of Parliament backing the motion so he can push it through.
“Until now, they only have 89 MPs. They need to show me the numbers, maybe they have 90 people (to vote), or maybe 100, then I can pressure the government to debate the motion,” he told reporters on October 21.
But as a representative of the people himself, the Speaker should also recognise that it is a matter of public interest and importance to have these questions raised in Parliament itself ― by right, such a motion should be of utmost priority in Parliament right now.
And that means allowing the motion to be heard with or without the numbers. Will the Speaker see the light and allow this?
Slim chance, but we can hope.
*This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
