MARCH 27 — In ”If there were allegations that could mislead Dewan Rakyat, were questions of privilege raised at the first opportunity?”, I referred to the classic work of Joseph Maingot who was Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of Canada’s House of Commons and Member of the Law Reform Commission of Canada.
Maingot called each House of Parliament a “court” with respect to its own privileges and dignity and the privileges of each MP. The purpose is “to maintain the respect and credibility due to and required of each House in respect of these privileges, to uphold its powers, and to enforce the enjoyment of the privileges” of each MP. https://www.malaymail.com/news/what-you-think/2024/03/10/if-there-were-allegations-that-could-mislead-dewan-rakyat-were-questions-of-privilege-raised-at-the-first-opportunity-hafiz-hassan/122651/dw
But a House of Parliament is not a court of law where the veracity of a statement can be tested and ascertained by cross-examination.
The importance of cross-examination has been stressed in a plethora of decided cases, here and abroad. It has been said that cross-examination is:
- the most effective of all means for extracting truth and exposing falsehood;
- to assist in the administration of justice by revealing the truth to the court;
- to eliminate or reduce the danger that a false conclusion will be reached; and
beyond doubt the greatest engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.
Unfortunately, the greatest engine ever invented for the discovery may not be available in the spat between Tasek Gelugor MP Wan Saiful Wan Jan and Tanjong Karang MP Dr Zulkafperi Hanapi and Gua Musang MP Azizi Abu Naim.
Wan Saiful on Tuesday (March 26) slammed the claim by the two floor-crossing Bersatu MPs that he had set conditions for his potential support of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.
In a Facebook post, Wan Saiful accused the “outcasts” of betraying Bersatu’s principles and slandering him in the process.
Wan Saiful was responding to the claim made by Dr Zulkafperi and Azizi at a press conference on Monday (March 25). Both the latter said they never made any offers to coerce the Tasek Gelugor MP to support the prime minister.
Both instead claimed that it was Wan Saiful who made demands in exchange for his support for Anwar’s leadership.
“If we look at it properly, all these offers were his own demands, set as conditions for his support of PMX (Anwar),” Zulkafperi had said.
The duo had reported Wan Saiful to a parliamentary committee over his accusation that they had attempted to persuade him to follow in their footsteps in pledging support for Anwar.
Dewan Rakyat speaker Johari Abdul, who acknowledged receiving the motions last Friday (March 22), said he understood that the duo were disappointed and had denied Wan Saiful’s allegations.
Johari said he intended to gather the facts and evidence before proceeding, either by directly referring all the three MPs elected representatives to a committee or by establishing a new committee composed of other MPs under Standing Order 80A.
Wan Saiful, in the meantime, said he had received a letter from the Dewan Rakyat speaker asking for an explanation, and he would submit his evidence directly to the committee.
Johari may be gathering facts and evidence, but he may not have the benefits of cross-examination, one of which is the most effective of all means for extracting truth and exposing falsehood.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
