What are the specific House Standing Orders preventing the motion debate?

Question

Accepted Answer

Section 23A(2) of the House Standing Order Prevents the Re-tabling of Dismissed Motions

The Sabah state assembly Speaker Datuk Kadzim M. Yahya has twice rejected applications by assemblyman Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal to table a motion concerning the Sulu sultanate heirs' claims to Sabah. The Speaker's decision is based on Section 23A(2) of the House Standing Order, which prohibits any motion that has previously been dismissed from being brought up for tabling again. This rule applies irrespective of the grounds on which the initial dismissal was made.
Dismissal of Motion Based on Standing Order

Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal's attempt to have the Sabah state assembly debate the Sulu sultanate heirs' claims was ultimately disallowed by Speaker Datuk Kadzim M. Yahya. The Speaker cited Section 23A(2) of the House Standing Order, stating that a motion previously dismissed cannot be re-tabled. This ruling was maintained despite Shafie's argument that the initial rejection on Monday was due to a lack of 24-hour notice, implying that the current submission, having met notice requirements, should be permissible.
Speaker's Interpretation of House Rules

Speaker Datuk Kadzim M. Yahya maintained that the House rules explicitly forbid the debate of rejected motions. He clarified that Section 23A(2) is clear in its intent: once a motion is dismissed, it cannot be reintroduced, regardless of the specific reason for its initial rejection. This interpretation formed the basis for his refusal to allow Shafie's motion to be debated in the assembly.
Previous Rejection Grounds and Shafie's Persistence

Shafie Apdal's initial emergency motion, submitted three days prior, sought to address the Sulu sultanate heirs' demands for payments related to Sabah. This motion was first rejected on the grounds of insufficient notice, specifically not meeting the 24-hour requirement. Shafie’s subsequent attempt today aimed to overcome this procedural hurdle, but the Speaker's adherence to Section 23A(2) prevented further discussion on the matter. Shafie expressed his intent to ensure it was recorded that the Speaker had rejected the motion, emphasizing his persistence in matters concerning the state's interests.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What are the specific House Standing Orders preventing the motion debate?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends