By Voon Lee Shan
The controversy surrounding the suspension of Padungan State Legislative Member (SLM) Chong Chieng Jen from the service of Sarawak State Legislative Assembly (SLA) raises an important question of parliamentary procedure: should the business of the House be prevented from proceeding merely because a member facing disciplinary action is absent from the sitting?
My position is clear. The Standing Orders must be applied consistently, impartially and without fear or favour. No elected representative, regardless of political affiliation, should be treated as being above the rules governing the proceedings of the House.
1. Standing Order 81: Absence must be formally notified
Standing Order 81 of the Sarawak SLA Standing Orders expressly provides:
“Without prejudice to Article 18(2)(c) of the Constitution of the State of Sarawak, a member shall inform the Speaker, as early as possible, through the Secretary, of his inability to attend any meeting of the Dewan and the reasons thereof.”
The provision establishes a prescribed procedure for notifying the Speaker of an inability to attend a sitting. It is not merely a matter of courtesy or informal communication between an assemblyman and the Speaker.
According to the proceedings reported on 15 October 2026, the Speaker explained that although Chong and Pending SLM Violet Yong had approached him concerning Chong's intended absence, the request was required to be submitted in writing through the Secretary.
If that is the applicable procedure, it must be complied with. A member's personal approach to the Speaker, or an informal discussion about an intended absence, should not automatically be equated with completion of the prescribed procedure.
The public is entitled to know whether the required written notification was submitted, when it was submitted, what reasons were given, and whether leave was formally granted in accordance with the Standing Orders.
For the avoidance of doubt, Standing Order 81 itself requires notification through the Secretary; the precise requirement for written submission and the legal effect of any verbal assurance should be established by reference to the applicable rules, administrative practice and official record. I therefore call upon the Speaker to clarify these matters publicly rather than allow speculation to determine public opinion.
2. Natural justice does not mean that proceedings must automatically stop
Violet Yong's argument that proceeding with the suspension motion in Chong's absence denied him natural justice requires closer examination.
The principle of natural justice is important. A member facing disciplinary action should be afforded a fair opportunity to know the allegations against him and to respond in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures.
However, the right to a fair opportunity to be heard is not the same as an unconditional right to prevent the House from proceeding whenever the member concerned is absent.
If Chong had received proper notice of the motion, understood the allegations against him and had a reasonable opportunity to attend and respond, the question arises whether his absence, particularly where the prescribed procedure for leave had not been completed, should automatically prevent the House from carrying out its business.
That question must be answered by reference to the Standing Orders, the relevant notice and procedural requirements, and the circumstances recorded in the official proceedings. It cannot be resolved merely by invoking the expression “natural justice”.
Conversely, the mere fact that a member was absent or that his leave request was procedurally deficient would not, by itself, conclusively establish that every requirement of natural justice had been satisfied. The actual notice given, the opportunity afforded to respond and the applicable disciplinary procedure must all be considered.
Violet Yong's objection should therefore be assessed against the applicable rules and established facts, rather than accepted as a sufficient legal conclusion in itself.
3. The House cannot be held to ransom by the absence of a member
The Speaker has a duty to protect the integrity, authority and orderly functioning of the House. The proceedings of the SLA cannot be rendered ineffective simply because a member who is aware of a pending motion chooses not to attend.
If a member knows that a disciplinary motion concerning his conduct is scheduled to be considered, the proper course is to attend and answer the allegations, or to seek leave in accordance with the prescribed procedure and provide the necessary reasons.
A member should not be permitted to rely on his own failure to comply with procedural requirements as an automatic basis for demanding that the House suspend its business.
Otherwise, a dangerous precedent could emerge: a member facing an adverse motion could frustrate the proceedings by remaining absent and subsequently contend that the House should not have proceeded without him.
That cannot be a sound basis for parliamentary administration.
The orderly conduct of the House must be protected, while the procedural rights of the member concerned must also be respected. These principles are complementary, not mutually exclusive.
4. The Speaker must clarify the rules, not leave the public to draw conclusions from Facebook
The public debate has also been clouded by references to Chong's Facebook activity and assumptions about whether he was in Kuching or elsewhere at the material time.
A Facebook post, by itself, does not conclusively establish a person's physical location, nor does it establish whether the formal requirements for leave were satisfied.
The relevant questions are whether the member received notice of the motion, whether the prescribed notification procedure was followed, whether leave was granted, and whether the House was entitled under its Standing Orders to proceed in his absence.
These matters should be established through official records, the relevant correspondence and the Hansard, rather than speculation based on social media.
As the custodian of the Standing Orders, the Speaker should explain the applicable provisions and their application to the facts. The public should not be left to rely on selective statements by political representatives or social media posts to understand a matter of parliamentary procedure.
I urge the Speaker to identify the relevant provisions clearly and explain the procedural basis on which the motion was allowed to proceed. This would promote transparency, strengthen public confidence and reduce unnecessary political controversy.
5. The law and rules must apply equally to government and opposition members
This is not an argument that an opposition member should be denied the right to criticise the government. Nor is it an argument that a government majority should be free to exercise disciplinary powers without proper regard for fairness.
The freedom of elected representatives to debate, scrutinise government policy and raise matters of public concern is fundamental to parliamentary democracy. Equally, that freedom operates within the rules governing the House.
Every member must observe the Standing Orders, and every disciplinary action must be taken under the proper authority and procedure. Neither political majority nor political opposition should be used as a substitute for compliance with the rules.
The same standards must apply to all members, without discrimination or political favour.
CONCLUSION
I reiterate that no SLM should be allowed to hold the House to ransom by relying on his own absence to frustrate the business of the SLA. Equally, no member should be subjected to disciplinary action without the procedural fairness required by the applicable rules.
The proper solution is not political rhetoric, personal attacks or arguments based on Facebook posts. It is a transparent application of the Standing Orders.
I therefore call upon the Speaker, as custodian of the House's rules, to clarify the operation of Standing Order 81 and the applicable provisions governing the suspension motion, including the requirements for notice, leave of absence and the opportunity to respond.
The people of Sarawak deserve clarity, consistency and accountability from their elected representatives and from the institution entrusted with upholding the rules of the House.
*The Standing Orders must prevail. The House must function. And the law must apply equally to all.*
Voon Lee Shan is Parti Bumi Kenyalang (PBK) presiding and a practising lawyerEditor's note: Chong Chieng Jen was suspended from the service of the Sarawak State Legislative Assembly on Oct 15 after a motion to suspend him was tabled and supported by the majority of the Slate Legislative Members.
