JULY 17 — There was much commotion at the Dewan Rakyat yesterday morning on the purportedly non-compliance of Standing Order 4(1) of the Standing Orders of the Dewan Rakyat Malaysia.

As always, let us begin with the highest law in the land, the Federal Constitution.

Article 62 (1) of the Federal Constitution states:-

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and of federal law, each House of Parliament shall regulate its own procedure.

Article 62(2) of the Federal Constitution states:-

(2) Each House may act notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership, and the presence or participation of any person not entitled thereto shall not invalidate any proceedings.

Standing Order 99a states:-

“Where in making any decision there has been a failure on the part of the House or any Committee thereof to comply with any provision of the Standing Order in the proceeding leading to the decision, such failure shall be treated as an irregularity and shall not nullify the proceedings or the decision resulting therefrom.”

Standing Order 4(1) states:-

4. The procedure for the election of a Yang diPertua shall be as follows:

(1) Every member who wishes to propose a person who is either a member of the House or is qualified for election as such for election as Yang di-Pertua shall ascertain previously that, that member is willing to serve if elected, and shall notify the Setiausaha of his proposal in writing at least fourteen days before the meeting.

Apparently the 14 day notice as stipulated  in Standing Order 4(1) above was not followed. However, clearly all had conveniently  overlooked Standing Order 99a which states a failure to comply with any provision of the Standing Order shall not  nullify the proceedings or the decisions resulting therefrom.

The other important matter is the raising of a point of order to the Clerk of the Dewan Rakyat.

I stand to be corrected by as I understand it to be, MPs from the Opposition were raising a point of order to Clerk to the Dewan Rakyat, Datuk Roosme Hamzah .

Article 57(1A) of the Federal Constitution provides for the election of a person who is not a member of the Dewan Rakyat as Speaker, and that person shall, by virtue of holding his office as Speaker,  then become a member of the Dewan Rakyat in addition.

Article 65 of the Federal Constitution provides for the office of the Clerk to the Dewan Rakyat and that person shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong among members of the general public service. 

Therefore, the Clerk to the Dewan Rakyat is not a member of the Dewan Rakyat, and knowing this very well, she could not have addressed any point of order raised to her by any member of the Dewan Rakyat even if she wanted to,  because any point of order raised, should be raised to the Speaker, not the Clerk, of the Dewan Rakyat.

Standing Order 43 states:-

“Tuan Yang di-Pertua in the House or the Chairman in Committee shall be responsible for the observance of the rules of order in the House and Committee respectively, and his decision on any point of order shall not be open to appeal and shall not be reviewed by the house except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose. Such a motion shall not require more than two days’ notice.”

In conclusion, a point of order in the Dewan Rakyat can only be made to the Speaker. This would of course include the two Deputy Speakers acting as Speaker when necessary. The walking out was absolutely unnecessary.

 

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.