Did the Speaker err in ruling on the point of order raised?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Speaker's Ruling on "Derhaka" Remarks Was Questioned for Procedural Accuracy

The Speaker's handling of a point of order concerning Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainuddin's use of the word "derhaka" and its variations has drawn scrutiny regarding procedural correctness. While the Speaker cited Standing Order 36(2) regarding sub judice matters and Standing Order 36(7) concerning references to royalty, the original point of order was based on Standing Order 36(6), which prohibits imputing improper motives. The Deputy Speaker, who was in the chair at the time, did not rule on this initial point of order.
A Point of Order Was Raised Against Imputing Improper Motives

During a speech on February 4, Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainuddin repeatedly used the Malay terms "derhaka," "menderhaka," "diderhaka," and "penderhakaan." This prompted Sungai Petani MP Dr. Mohammed Taufiq bin Johari to raise a point of order, questioning the basis for calling the government "a government of traitors" (kerajaan penderhaka). This objection was grounded in Standing Order 36(6), which explicitly forbids members from attributing improper motives to fellow members.
The Deputy Speaker Did Not Rule on the Initial Point of Order

Following Dr. Mohammed Taufiq's objection, the Deputy Speaker, who was presiding at the time, reportedly did not issue a ruling on the point of order raised under Standing Order 36(6). A point of order requires the presiding Chair to interpret the rules of the House and decide on the merits of the objection raised by a member as soon as an irregularity occurs. The failure to rule on the specific point concerning improper motives left the matter unresolved at that stage.
The Speaker Cited Different Standing Orders for the Ruling

When the Speaker took over the chair, a ruling was eventually made, but it cited different Standing Orders. The Speaker ruled based on Standing Order 36(2), which pertains to not prejudicing court proceedings, and Standing Order 36(7), which prohibits using the names of the King or Rulers to influence the House. However, the original point of order was not based on these grounds but specifically on the imputation of improper motives.
The Appropriateness of the Cited Standing Orders Was Questioned

The article suggests that the citation of Standing Order 36(7) was procedurally incorrect for the context of the "derhaka" remarks. It posits that Standing Order 36(4), which addresses the prohibition of offensive language, would have been a more fitting provision to cite. Consequently, the Speaker's decision to rule on Standing Orders 36(2) and 36(7) without addressing the point of order under Standing Order 36(6) led to the perception that the Opposition Leader was not held accountable for potentially imputing improper motives.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Did the Speaker err in ruling on the point of order raised?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends