By Baru Bian,
Selangau MP
This morning when I went to Parliament House for the Covid-19 test, I was handed a notice from the Speaker informing MPs that the only item on the order of the Day for 18 May will be His Majesty YDP Agong’s Royal Address.
 |
| Selanagu MP Baru Bian |
The legal issue that arises is whether this event on 18 May can be deemed to be a ‘Parliamentary Sitting’ or ‘Meeting’ under the Constitution.
Even before this latest notice from the Speaker, issues had been raised concerning the sufficiency of a one-day meeting to fulfil the requirement of Article 55 (1) of the Federal Constitution that Parliament must sit within 6 months of the last Parliamentary session.
Lawyer Datuk Joy Appukuttan had stated in his opinion published in the Malaysian Bar website that:
“The word, ‘sitting’ appearing in the old Article 150 (2) of the Federal Constitution was extensively argued in Khong Teng Khenxiv and the majority of the Federal Court defined the word as follows,
“I pause here to record my observation on the meaning of the word "sitting" in clause (2) of Article 150 which was discussed and debated at length during the course of arguments. In my view the word "sitting" means sitting and actually deliberating as suggested by Encik Abu Talib.” (emphasis is added)
Clearly, the Federal Court had ruled that there needs to be an element of deliberation in order to be a ‘sitting’; mere attendance is not enough.
Datuk Joy’s article was written at the time the one-day meeting was to have included certain motions for debate, and his opinion was that there should be other matters to be debated and deliberated on, if the Parliamentarians were to be allowed to fulfil their constitutional oaths.
Now that the Order of the Day has been whittled down to just the Royal Address, the matter has taken an even more serious turn.
The meeting on 18 May will be devoid of any sort of deliberation, rendering it a non-sitting or an invalid sitting, and the implication would be that if Parliament does not sit before 18 June, it would have failed to sit within 6 months of the last Parliamentary session, which ended on 17 December 2019.
This would give rise to the consequence that the government is not legitimate for being unconstitutional.
The Speaker had written in his notice dated 13 May 2020 that he was directed by the Prime Minister to make the changes to the Order of the Day. Before this, the de facto Law Minister had announced on 3 May 2020 that the government had ‘also agreed to introduce several relevant bills to be tabled at the July sitting following the effects of Covid-19 on the general public, businesses and companies’.
On 8 May 2020, the Speaker announced that he had accepted a motion from Tun Mahathir for a no-confidence vote against TS Muhyiddin Yassin.
The ensuing instruction from TS Muhyiddin Yassin that all items be removed from the Day’s meeting except for the Royal Address leads one to the inescapable conclusion that he does not have the confidence that he has the numbers to defeat the motion.
Citing health concerns around the Covid-19 virus at this time only sounds like a desperate excuse considering that many sectors of business and industry have been reopening and people are going back to work.
MPs should not be treated as being more delicate and precious that the ordinary citizen. It is their duty to attend Parliament to bring up and discuss such matters as the effect of the virus and MCO on the people and the economy, the well-being of the nation, and also to consider the various measures that have been taken by the government to help the people.
In the name of transparency and good governance, the stimulus packages that have been announced need to be put before the Dewan Rakyat for debate.
There is no logical reason not to have a proper sitting of Parliament – MPs have travelled to Kuala Lumpur from various corners of Malaysia.
The Royal Address is an important item in the agenda of a Parliamentary sitting, but by itself and of itself, cannot constitute a Parliamentary sitting.
How could it be, when there is not even going to be a motion of thanks to be moved for the YDP Agong’s Speech, which is traditionally done at the end of a sitting of Parliament?
It would be an embarrassment and an affront to the dignity of our Institution of Parliament if this sitting were to be known as a sitting that never was. - May 14, 2020
No comments:
Post a Comment