Dewan Rakyat walkout raises questions

PERHAPS it is because I am a half-past six law graduate that I am unable to understand the legal rationale for the walkout staged by nearly all Barisan Nasional Members of Parliament (BN MPs) and their counterparts from PAS on the first day of the 14th session of Parliament last week.

This walkout prompts several questions to my less than first-class mind, enfeebled by the passage of more than 40 years since I was called to the Malaysian Bar as well as the continuing need to understand the sometimes incomprehensible political machinations and convoluted government policies in this country.

BN MPs claimed their walkout was a protest against the failure by the ruling Pakatan Harapan (PH) coalition to observe the requisite procedure for appointing Datuk Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof as Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat; a failure that rendered this appointment unlawful and, therefore, void, they claimed.

Under Standing Order 4(1), the list of candidates for the position of Speaker must be submitted at least 14 days before the sitting of the Dewan Rakyat.

Newly-minted Leader of the Opposition and Barisan Nasional (BN) President Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said there was evidence to show the letter proposing Mohamad Ariff as the Speaker was backdated to July 2.

In a New Straits Times (NST) report dated Friday, July 13 this year, Mohamad Ariff is quoted as saying the latest date the appointment letter would be issued was Sunday, July 15 – one day before the start of the 14th Parliamentary session.

Additionally, Datuk Takiyuddin Hassan, Kota Baru MP and chief whip for PAS, said Mohamad Ariff’s appointment could be challenged in court. This Parliamentary session should have been postponed for two weeks to enable the PH government to nominate Mohamad Ariff as Dewan Rakyat Speaker in compliance with Standing Order 4(1), he added.

These noteworthy statements by BN and PAS prompt several questions.

Question one: Why didn’t BN and PAS MPs show a signed statement by the NST journalist attesting that on Friday, 13th July (three days before the start of the 14th Parliamentary session) Mohamad Ariff indicated he had yet to receive his letter of appointment?

Demonstrating beyond the balance of probabilities that Mohamad Ariff’s appointment letter was backdated to July 2 would have forced the PH administration to postpone the sitting of the Dewan Rakyat to a later date.

Without providing incontestable proof the appointment letter was backdated provokes the unworthy thought the walkout was political grand standing.

Question two: Why did the BN and PAS MPs who walked out, return to the Dewan Rakyat, to take their oath before a Speaker whom they alleged was improperly appointed? Wasn’t this inconsistent with their claim that Mohamad Ariff’s appointment was invalid?

Question three: If BN and PAS MPs who walked out, took their oath of office before a Speaker whom they allege was improperly appointed, does this mean these MPs voluntarily condoned the improper appointment?

Question four: Apart from garnering headlines and photos in newspapers and on websites of the almost-deserted Opposition benches, what did BN and PAS achieve by staging this mass departure from the Dewan Rakyat?

Question five: Why didn’t BN and PAS MPs insist on taking their oath 13 days later when the appointment of the Speaker would have fulfilled the requisite 14 days’ notice?

Question six: Why didn’t BN and PAS MPs adopt the suggestion by Datuk Takiyuddin, the PAS chief whip, and legally challenge Mohamad Ariff’s appointment?

Question seven: Did BN and PAS leaders ask themselves whether Mohamad Ariff, who worked as a lawyer and a judge, would have accepted an appointment that was legally questionable?

Question eight: Why didn’t BN and PAS leaders test the sincerity of PH political leaders’ frequently expressed hope the Opposition would act as a strong check and balance against the government by mounting a credible challenge against the alleged invalid appointment of Mohamad Ariff as Speaker? Why didn’t BN put forward its own nominee as Speaker?

Question nine: Given the fact Mohamad Ariff’s appointment as Speaker is one of several examples of the long-drawn negotiations to achieve consensus among PH’s component parties, why did BN and PAS pass up this opportunity to emphasise the ruling coalition’s need to speed-up significantly its current dilatory decisionmaking process?

Question ten: Against the backdrop of claims by BN and PAS leaders that they had proof Mohamad Ariff’s letter of appointment was back-dated, does the failure of both political parties to take a stronger principled stand over this issue imply an abdication of responsibility to act as a counterweight against PH’s overwhelming political dominance?

Going forward, all Malaysians expect BN and PAS to challenge PH on substantive issues – whether political, legal, social or economic – rather than indulge in mindless political theatrics.