Nov 20, 2012
Speaker Datuk Amar Asfia Awang Nasar guns down three private members’ motions tabled by the Opposition.
Tuan Speaker: Ahli-Ahli Yang Berhormat, I had received a motion dated 8th November,
2012 from the Honourable Member for Meradong. I shall now call upon Honourable
Member to read out the motion.
Y.B. Cik Ting Tze Fui: Thank you, Tuan Speaker. My motion read as follows.
Whereas:
(i) The Automated Enforcement System (AES) has been highly controversial
since its introduction;
(ii) Upon the full operation of the AES in Malaysia, a total of 831 AES
cameras are to be set up nationwide and among which 28 are in
Sarawak;
(iii) Traffic enforcement system should remain within the government‟s
domain but the project is outsourced to two private companies thereby
making the AES a project motivated by profits and not road safety;
(iv) The first phase of the AES implementation in Semenanjung Malaysia has
exposed its inherent shortcomings and defects such as AES
implementation in low-speed stretches of road which is impractical, the
likelihood of innocent car owners/motorists being penalized in the case of
stolen vehicle(s) or fake number plate(s) fraudulently used by others;
(v) The public and politicians especially Parliamentarians from both the
Government and Opposition had expressed their disapproval to the
implementation of AES.
Wherefore it is moved:
(i) The State Government rejects the outsourcing of the implementation and
operation of AES to two private concession holders;
(ii) The State government defers to implementation of AES pending further
study, consultation and the proper rectification of its inherent defects or
weaknesses especially in the manner of its implementation in low-speed
stretches of road in Sarawak so that Sarawakians shall not be penalized unfairly.
Tuan Speaker: Ahli-Ahli Yang Berhormat, this is my ruling.
(1) The fact that the law on the Automatic Enforcement System (AES) had been
tabled, debated and approved in the Dewan Rakyat conclusively proves beyond
any shadow of doubt that the law in question and its implementation thereof is
within the preview and jurisdiction of the Federal Government. This is in tandem
with the Federal further Constitution 9th Schedule (Article 74-77) Legislative list,
list 1 –
(a) Federal List Number 6 (g) the Federal Public Authorities;
(b) Federal list Number 10 - Regulation of traffic by land, water and air are on
rivers outside harbor areas wholly within one state.
The subject matter in regulating traffic by land comes within the ambit an authority
of federal public authority, the Transport Ministry of Malaysia.
(2) The stand taken by the State Government on the subject matter is summed up
by a memorandum dated 13th November 2012 by the Kementerian
Pembangunan Infrastruktur dan Perhubungan Sarawak as follows:
(i) AES is a system that uses technology to enhance enforcement. Its
primary objectives are to reduce road accidents and improve road safety;
(ii) The localities for AES were based on study and research by MIROS
(Malaysia Institute of Road Safety Research);
(iii) The Ministry of Transport Malaysia (MOT) and JPJ Malaysia are
responsible for the implementation of AES;
(iv) According to JPJ Sarawak, JPJ Malaysia will officially inform and brief the
state and respective road authorities agencies prior to the implementation
of AES in the state; and
(v) Unless and until the state has been officially informed and briefed on the
implementation of AES in the state, it is premature to discuss the subject.
That‘s the end of the memorandum.
(3) The motion dated 8th November, 2012 in the name of the Honorable Member of
Meradong by its own admission acknowledges that the subject matter raise is
within the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Paragraph 1 of the preamble: quote ―The Automated Enforcement System has
been highly controversial since its introduction‖. This is an admission that it was
introduced by the federal government.
Paragraph two of the preamble ―Upon the full operation of the AES in Malaysia, a
total of 831 AES cameras are to be set up nationwide and among which 28 are in
Sarawak‖. This is an admission that the federal government will implement it
throughout the nation.
Paragraph three of the preamble ―Traffic enforcement system should remain
within the government‘s domain but the project is outsourced to two private
companies thereby making the AES a project motivated for profit and not road
safety‖. This is an admission that traffic and road safety are federal matters.
Paragraph four of the preamble. ―The first phase of the AES implementation in
Peninsular Malaysia has exposed its inherent shortcomings and defects such as
AES implementation in low speed stretches of road which is impractical, the
likelihood of innocent car‘ owners motorists being penalized in case of stolen
cars and so forth‖. This is an admission it is a federal subject.
Paragraph five of the preamble ―The public and politicians especially
Parliamentarians from both the Government and Opposition had expressed their
disapproval to the implementation of AES‖. This is an admission as a federal
matter.
Even the resolution of the motion which reads that it is the implementation in low
speed stretches of road in Sarawak is a federal matter. Speeding on the road is
within the authority of the police and JPJ.
Under Standing Order 23 (6) ―No motion relating to a matter contained in the
Federal List shall be in order‖.
Standing Order 32 (10) (c): ―It shall be out of order to use words which are likely
infringe the Federal Constitution and in this case, the 9th Schedule, (Article 74,
Article 77) of the Federal Constitution. Based on this grounds that I mentioned,
this motion is dismissed.
Y.B. Cik Ting Tze Fui: Y.B. Cik Ting Tze Fui : Tuan Speaker. As a matter of fact, I
think our PR Pakatan Rakyat State Government in Penang and Selangor, they are
already making decision to revolve the implementation of AES in the state but how
come, why our Sarawak State Government cannot follow suit and make the same
decision like our Pakatan Rakyat government in Semenanjung? Because this matter on
implementation of AES is concerning all the motorist in Sarawak and it shows how State
Government is concern about our public interest in this matter.
Tuan Speaker: If you are dissatisfied with my ruling, you can file in a substitute motion.
Sarawak is a Barisan Nasional State, it‘s not an opposition state. It does not intend to
put up constitutional administrative barricades to impede the implementation of this. I
shall now move to the next motion. No, you can file this in substitute motion if you are
dissatisfied in my ruling.
Tuan Speaker: Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat, I had received a motion dated 8th November,
2012 from the Honorable Member for Bukit Assek. I shall now call upon Honourable
Member for Bukit Asek to read out the motion.
Y.B Encik Wong Ho Leng: Thank you, Tuan Speaker. This is my motion on the hydroelectric projects in Sarawak.
1. The forced resettlement of the indigenous peoples for the Bakun dam has
caused them loss of livelihood, cultural heritage and farmlands;
2. The proposed 12 hydroelectric projects in Sarawak will have similar
effects, including irreversible destruction of ecosystems and indigenous
farmlands, cultural system, local histories and knowledge and a great loss
for all Sarawakians;
3. Sarawak already has excess power supply from Bakun and there is no
necessity to build more dams for SCORE and for aluminum industries
therein which induce pollution and are health hazardous at the expense of
the expense of the environment and her people;
4. The affected indigenous peoples of Sarawak have not been meaningfully
consulted on the united nation declaration of our rights on native people
on the proposals to build the existing and proposed 12 HEP, and the land
acquisition, resettlement and relocation process for dam-building have
been non-transparent and detrimental to the peoples‟ well-being.
I move that this Dewan reseolves that the State Government:
1. Cancel all plans for the construction of the 12 proposed hydroelectric
projects;
2. Establish a reparation process for Bakun-affected communities both in
Sungai Asap and in upper Balui to address al outstanding issues
including unfair compensation, substitution of lost farmlands, livelihood
and welfare matters. These are matters the Honorable Member for Land
Development is very familiar;
3. Develop alternative renewable energy, for example, micro-hydro dams,
solar, wind-power, bio-waste materials etc. instead of resorting to
dynamism and building mega-dams; and
4. To stop heavily polluting industries into the state, including aluminum
smelter and fero-alloy plants.
Tuan Speaker: Ahli-Ahli Yang Berhormat, this is my ruling.
Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: I thought it can be allowed.
Tuan Speaker: In the 1st preamble of the motion it is expressly stated that ―The forced
resettlement of the indigenous peoples for the Bakun Dam has caused them loss of
livelihood, cultural heritage and farmlands.
This is repeated in the 4th preamble that ―the land acquisition, resettlement and
relocation process for dam-building have been non-transparent and detrimental to the
peoples‘ well-being.
This is reiterated in 2nd resolution of the motion ―to address all outstanding issues
including unfair compensation, substitution of lost farmlands, livelihood and welfare
matters.
Right now, there are twenty-two (22) cases that have been fixed for hearing in
the Session Court to be heard in January 2013. These 22 cases are in connection with
cases on land compensation as a result of land acquisition on the Bakun Dam.
As these cases are pending for hearing whether in the court of first instance or
appellate, the subject-matter brought by the motion is therefore sub-judice.
Under Standing Order 20 (1) (g): ―A question shall not be so drafted as to be
likely to prejudice a case under trial or be asked on any matter which is sub-judice.‖
Under Standing Order 24 (4) (b): ―If the Speaker is of the opinion that any notice
received by the Secretary infringes any Standing Order or is otherwise out of order, he
may direct that it be returned to the member who signed it as being in his opinion out of
order.”
Under Standing Order 32 (11): ―If the Speaker is of the opinion that any motion or
amendment or the continuance of the debate thereon is calculated to give rise to
breaches of this Standing Order, he may disallow the motion or amendment or, as the
case may be, may terminate the debate and direct that no further proceedings be taken
on the motion or amendment.”
This ―sub-judice rule as it is called is spelt out clearly in Erskine May
Parliamentary Practice pages 364-365, ―If the subject-matter of the question is found to
be, or becomes, sub-judice after notice of the question has been given, the Member is
asked to withdraw it, or the Speaker may direct it to be removed from the notice paper or
refuse to allow it to be asked if it is on the Order Paper. ―Questions which reflect on the
decision of a court of law are not in order.
This principle is repeated on page 396: ―The House has resolved that no matter
awaiting or under adjudication by a court of law (including a coroner‘s court or a Fatal
Accident Inquiry) should be brought before it by a motion or otherwise.
This motion raises numerous issues and side issues as follows:-
(1) Forced settlement of the indigenous people‘s for Bakun;
(2) Loss of livelihood;
(3) Loss of cultural heritage;
(4) Loss of farmlands;
(5) Proposed 12 hydro electric projects;
(6) Irreversible destruction of ecosystem;
(7) Loss of history;
(8) Loss of knowledge;
(9) Loss for Sarawakians;
(10) Dams for SCORE;
(11) Alluminium Industries;
(12) Reparation process for communities in Sungai Asap & Upper Balui;
(13) Alternative renewable energy e.g. micro dams, solar, wind power, bio
waste materials;
(14) Heavily polluting industries including aluminium smelter & ferro alloy
plants.
The motion raised 14 issues and policies for the government to address. The
question of issues and policies are crammed into one motion.
According to Erskine May Parliamentary Practice (page 365): ―Questions are also
inadmissible which seek the solution of hypothetical propositions, raise questions of
policy too large to be dealt with in an answer to a question; seek information on matters
of past history for the purposes of argument; are multiplied with slight variation on the
same point; or are trivial, vague or meaningless.”
This campaign rule is repeated on page 399 which reads: ―The Speaker has
applied to motions the campaign rule which lays down that questions are inadmissible if
they are multiplied with slight variations on the same subject. Based on these grounds
the motion is dismissed.
Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Tuan Speaker, you murdered the motion and they are
blooding. How can I be? Anyway, I just have a few words to say Tuan Speaker. Now if
there are 22 cases being scheduled for hearing in January 2013 and the issue cannot be
raised, I think Tuan Speaker, you got it wrong. My motion pertains to the proposed HEP,
that‘s one. Number two, in the view we are talking about the issue on Bakun dam. The
Bakun dam, the subject matter of delegation concerns also NRC land. In the event that
you are going to disallow this motion on ground, that it is too lengthy, in the event that it
is a conglomeration of different, a lot of issue inside that.
Tuan Speaker: I have given my ruling.
Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Tuan Speaker, we were disallowed… (Inaudible) We
should be allowed talking about NCR land issues as well.
Tuan Speaker: I have given my ruling.
Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Yes Tuan Speaker, over time we have been allowed to talk
about NRC land issues. Number three, Tuan Speaker on the issue of hypothetical
question, this is nothing to do with hypothetical question. This is the motion. A proper
motion in this Dewan.
Tuan Speaker: Okay, I have given my ruling. There a two rules. The sub-judice rule
and the campaign rule. The campaign rule is that questions are in admissible if they are
multiplied with slight variations on the same point. Okay.
Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat, I have received a motion dated 8 November 2012 from the
Honorable Member for Kota Sentosa. I shall call upon the Honorable Member for Kota
Sentosa to read out his motion.
Y.B. Encik Chong Chieng Jen: Thank you Tuan Speaker, I think there is a typo error
by this secretariat in respect of my motion, line three, the third word on line three, the
quote ―Sarawak has lost but it has been type as ‗lot‘ which doesn‘t make sense.
I‘ve checked with my record.
Tuan Speaker: Sarawak has lost....
Y.B. Encik Chong Chieng Jen: lost...LOST, I‘ve checked with my record, my motion
actually typed LOST but I think the secretariat has made the typo error, I would like to
amend .. my motion, just for the record.
Tuan Speaker: Okey
Y.B. Encik Chong Chieng Jen: Before I read it Tuan Speaker, are you gonna act as a
Minister concerned to answer my motion. Or you leave it to the Minister.
Tuan Speaker: The Minister to answer your motion, but it is not being debated yet.
Y.B. Encik Chong Chieng Jen: You have been so well learned... so well learned in
all the field as seem you are the Minister for all the subject that is raised.
Tuan Speaker: I have to see whether your motion is in order or not...you may proceed.
Y.B. Encik Chong Chieng Jen: I was impressed by your ability Tuan Speaker. Alright,
I am going to my motion..
Tuan Speaker: Okay, proceed.
Y.B. Encik Chong Chieng Jen: My motion read as follow: Whereas an internationally
renowned publication, The Economist (November 3rd 2012), has reported that:
―Sarawak has lost more than 90% of its ‗primary‘ forests to logging and has the fastest
rate of deforestation in Asia. Sarawak has only 0.5% of the world‘s tropical forest but
accounted for 25% of tropical-log exports in 2012‖
And whereas the State Government‘s claim that 60 – 70% of Sarawak forest remains
intact does not tally but contradict with its claim of exporting the world‘s 25% tropical log
and 50% of tropical plywood and also contradicts the satellite images captured by the
Greenpeace World Resources Institute in year 2010 which revealed that Sarawak now
has less than 55% of its intact forests remaining.
And whereas such disproportionely high rate of logging not only calles to question the
Sarawak Government‘s integrity and the sustainability of the logging industry in Sarawak
but also results in serious adverse environmental and social impacts to the locals.
And whereas the State Government‘s policy in allowing the exportation of log has
deprived the local wood-based downstream industry of their raw materials.
Wherefore it is resolved:
1. An independent internationally recognised auditor be appointed to survey
and carry out a full inventory of Sarawak‘s forest estate;
2. An inquiry be made into the integrity and the sustainability of the logging
industry in Sarawak; and
3. The Sarawak Government do immediately prohibit the export of timber
logs from Sarawak.
Tuan Speaker: Ahli-Ahli Yang Berhormat, this is my ruling.
(1) The foundation & substratum on which this motion is built lies in its opening
preamble which reads:
“Sarawak has lost more than 90% of its „primary‟ forests to logging and has
the fastest rate of deforestation in Asia. Sarawak has only 0.5% of the
world‟s tropical forest but accounted for 25% of tropical-log exports in 2010.”
This motion took a leaf out of the article published by a London-based magazine
―The Economist‖ dated 3rd November 2012.
In the same article this statement is contradicted and refuted by HSBC which
stated that ―it is not accurate to state that its clients are in violation of its
forestland and forest-products policy. It said current data show that 99% of its
forest-sector clients worldwide are compliant or near compliant with its policy‖.
Under Standing Order 20 (2) (i): ―Without prejudice to paragraph (1), every
question shall not be asked to verify statements in the press or private individuals
or bodies are accurate.‖
This rule applies to 1st preamble of the motion which refers to a report by a
magazine and 2nd preamble which refers to satellite images by Greenpeace
World Resources Institute.
Erskine May Parliamentary Practice page 361: ―Questions asking whether
statements in the press, or of private individuals, or unofficial bodies are accurate
or asking for comment on statements made by persons in other countries (unless
the statement is a message from one government to Her Majesty‘s Government)
have been ruled out of order.
To allow the motion to proceed would be in breach of Standing Order 32 (11).
Standing Order 32 (11): ―If the Speaker is of the opinion that any motion or
amendment or the continuance of the debate thereon is calculated to give rise to
breaches of this Standing Order, he may disallow the motion or amendment or,
as the case may be, may terminate the debate and direct that no further
proceedings be taken on the motion or amendment.
2. The motion relies on the article from a foreign magazine and a Greenpeace
organisation. The reports have not been independently verified and confirmed by
internationally recognised organisations that have internationally acclaimed
expertise on timber logging like The International Tropical Timber Organisation
which specialises in tropical timber, and not temperate timber.
The report has not been verified by our own legally established body on
environment, established under the National Resources and Environment
Ordinance (Cap. 84) or by the Department of Environment Malaysia.
To allow a motion based on foreign reports not independently verified and
confirmed by International Authorities on Timber Logging would set a dangerous
precedent and open up a floodgate to countless motions based on unverified
foreign reports made in far away foreign lands.
This would inevitably promote susceptibility and gullibility among members of the
public that unverified foreign report can be accepted without question lock, stock
and barrel, and unverified satellite images be swallowed hook, line and sinker.
Even the world renown BBC a British Broadcasting Corporation in the words of
its newly appointed Director General committed ―basic journalistic failings
following the resignations of its former Director General and key officials after
publishing fake and false report on a politician in a child abuse case.
The BBC is now under investigation in the cover up of the Jimmy Savile sex
scandal.
We have to be mindful of unofficial unverified foreign reports from foreign press which
have no forests in their own countries, but at the same time preaching to us with pious
platitudes to us on how to look after our own forests. The decision and ruling by Yang
Berhormat Tan Sri Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat on the ―SCORPENE case are
germane.
The learned Honourable Speaker rejected in Chambers and motion by
Honourable Member for Lembah Pantai, Nurul Izzah Anwar. The rejection was made
because she said the motion did not adhere to Standing Order 23 (1) (h) of Dewan
Rakyat‘s Standing Orders which is equivalent to Standing Order 20 (2) (h) of Dewan
Undangan Negeri Sarawak‘s Standing Orders. Standing Order 23 (1) (h) of the Dewan
Rakyat reads: ―A question shall not be asked for the purpose of obtaining an expression
of opinion, the solution of an abstract legal case or the answer to a hypothetical
proposition.‖
Standing Order 20 (2) (h) of Dewan Undangan Negeri Sarawak reads: ―Without
prejudice to paragraph (1), every question shall not be asked for the purpose of
obtaining an expression of opinion, the solution of an abstract legal case or the answer
to a hypothetical proposition.‖
The Honourable Speaker of Dewan Rakyat ruled that the alleged sale was still an
―assumption, and not official. ―The matter raised in this motion is an assumption, and
not a specific matter, because the matter about the transaction sale of the documents is
not clear.
The forests and environment of Sarawak are largely governed by, inter alia, 3
laws or body, namely:
(1) The Forest Ordinance (Cap. 126) enacted in 1954;
(2) The National Reserves and Environment Ordinance (Cap. 84) enacted in
1958; and
(3) Federal Department of Environment.
There is no provision in the existing law that states that whenever there is an
unverified foreign report or unverified satellite image then in the language of the motion.
(1) ―An independent internationally recognised auditor to be appointed to
survey and carry out a full inventory of Sarawak‘s forest estate;‖
(2) ―Immediately prohibit the export of timber logs.‖
To comply with the 2 resolutions would require a new legislation or alternatively
amendments to the existing laws.
Such proposed amendments bring about legal implications and ramifications that
require the motion to condescend into the particulars of the law.
This can only be done under Standing Order 45.
But this motion does not even state that the motion and notice thereof to move is
even under Standing Order 23.
There is no mention at all in the entire motion that it is moved under any
particular Standing Order.
Based on the grounds mentioned the motion is dismissed.
Y.B. Encik Chong Chieng Jen: Tuan Speaker, your rulling has just made this Dewan a
cocoon of its own. You can‘t stick your head in the sand like what the ostrich did and
deliberately oblivious to what the international body are looking upon Sarawak. That‘s
number one.
Tuan Speaker: Under what Standing Order?
Y.B. Encik Chong Chieng Jen: Number two, Tuan Speaker you are acting like a
Minister. You are acting like a Minister.
Tuan Speaker: Under what Standing Order?
Y.B. Encik Chong Chieng Jen: Where‘s the Minister in-charge? He has no calibre to
answer the motion like that.
