Parliament can learn from Selangor speaker’s decision to allow hudud debate, say analysts

Parliament and state legislative assemblies would be wise to heed the Selangor speaker's decision earlier this week to allow the opposition to table a motion on hudud, analysts said, citing two reasons.

First, to be part of an evolving maturing democracy means having the courage and will to allow matters to be debated openly, no matter how uncomfortable it may make one feel.

Second, it will throw the spotlight on the opposition, especially on the quality of its elected representatives in debate and conduct.

In Parliament, where motions brought by the Pakatan Rakyat MPs are almost always thrown out, speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia and his two deputies should take a leaf out of their Selangor counterpart Hannah Yeoh's book in allowing opposition motions to be tabled and debated, the analysts said.

Although Selangor Umno subsequently withdrew the motion, the analysts said allowing the party to table the bill showed the state's understanding that the Islamic penal code has generated intense public interest and deserved to be discussed.

Merdeka Center executive director Ibrahim Suffian described the move as a healthy development.

"By allowing a motion from the opposition, it showed that the Selangor assembly is more democratic,” the pollster told The Malaysian Insider.

It is rare that opposition members in Malaysia were allowed to table motions touching on issues of public interest – as in the case of the Selangor legislative, he said, noting that it was quite the norm in countries with more mature democracies.

"It is time for Parliament to be more open to discuss issues that are pertinent to the people," said Ibrahim.

In Parliament, there are two types of motions – emergency motions and normal motions.

Emergency motions usually need one day’s notice and have to fulfil Standing Orders 18(1), meaning they have to be urgent, specific and of public interest.

Some of these motions are rejected in chambers by the speaker because of failure to fulfil the notice request or because the motion is not relevant.

If a motion makes it to the house, an MP will have a chance to read it out after the end of question time before the speaker makes a decision.

Emergency motions are usually brought up by opposition MPs and almost always rejected by the speaker on the grounds that they are not urgent, not specific and not of public interest.

Among the emergency motions brought up by the opposition over the years were to dock the salaries of ministers for failure to perform their duties, on custodial deaths and more recently, to discuss the financial health of national carrier Malaysia Airlines.

On rare occasions, Parliament has also rejected Barisan Nasional's emergency motions as in the case of Datuk Seri Noh Omar (BN-Tanjong Karang) who had his motion to condemn the Coalition of Malaysian NGOs (Comango) thrown out in November last year, as Putrajaya had addressed the matter.

The normal motions are usually listed in the back pages of the order paper and have to be submitted 14 days before Parliament sits.

These motions are rarely debated because the government's business always takes precedence and has to be completed first.

The speaker uses his discretionary powers to decide on the order the motions appear on the order paper.

One such motion was submitted by Azmin Ali (PKR-Gombak) on March 26 to debate on the conduct of three Appeals Court judges involved in overturning opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy acquittal.

The motion, which had the support of 62 MPs, was slotted at No. 21, which is the last item on the list, to the consternation of the opposition who argued to no avail for the motion to be debated.

The process is similar in the Selangor assembly, except that there is a recourse for members if their emergency motions are rejected in the house.

An assemblyman can still have his or her motion debated if a minimum of five representatives support it.

Ibrahim said that as whatever was discussed in Parliament would become public record, there might be a desire by the speaker to contain certain debates that might embarrass the government in the future.

"Opposition motions tend to put the sitting government in a negative light and hence the desire to nip any dissenting debate, but in the long run, it does not help.
"It does not allow criticism to emerge and, therefore, it prevents constructive solutions and views from being discussed," he said.
Throwing out opposition motions also would not expose the opposition to public scrutiny of their quality of debate and proposed solutions, he said.
In agreeing with Ibrahim's views, Universiti Putra Malaysia political analyst Dr Jayum Jawan said allowing debate on the motions brought by Pakatan Rakyat elected representatives does not mean one had to agree with them.

"At the end of the day, it still has to be subjected to a vote. What is important is that it fosters healthy debates on issues. Any MP should be allowed to table a motion and see it debated.”

While the Selangor hudud motion has thrown up comparisons between the conduct of the state and federal speakers, one thing is clear: where there is a will, there is a way.

In the case of Yeoh, she said she allowed it as she owed it to the people of Selangor and state assemblymen to allow debates on any issue that was valid and worthy of debate.

The Parliament speaker could emulate Yeoh, said Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (Ideas) chief executive Wan Saiful Wan Jan.

"If the speaker wants to do it, he can, no matter how detached the idea is," he said, adding that the opposition was also part of the country's governance.

However, he queried Selangor Umno’s tabling of the hudud motion when there were other more urgent matters, such the water supply crisis and traffic management in the state.

"It is interesting to see where their priorities are. I congratulate Selangor Umno for showing they are much more pious than Umno as a whole."

Umno lawmaker Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed conceded that the Parliament speaker was "sometimes hampered" in discharging his duties by the government as first priority has to be given to the government’s business of the day.

"For example, on the issue of hudud, I feel it should be allowed to be tabled in Parliament so that a full debate can be conducted," said the Pulai MP. - Yahoo News
SHARE
    Blogger Comment
    Facebook Comment

0 comments:

Post a Comment