Experts: No legal obstacle to conducting virtual sessions
There is no legal obstacle preventing Malaysia from conducting online parliamentary sessions in light of the Covid-19 crisis, say legal experts.
They believe that all it takes is an adjustment to the procedures on how to manage the proceedings before making the situation a reality.
Professor Datuk Salleh Buang, a former federal counsel at the Attorney-General’s Chambers, said physical Dewan Rakyat sittings in the House were a convention rather than a legal obligation.
“The speaker only has to change the internal procedures on how to regulate the proceedings, which are within his jurisdiction.
“I have absolute confidence that the speaker and his team can amend the procedures in no time at all provided he gets the green light from ‘upstairs’ (the government),” said the law professor from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
This, he said, could allow the May session, which has been cut short to cover only the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s speech on the day, to resume virtually.
Salleh laid out several options, with the first being to dispense with meeting in the Dewan Rakyat altogether and have members of parliament (MPs) meet virtually from different locations in the interest of minimising the transmission of the Covid-19 virus.
“Secondly, Parliament can opt to have a very restricted number of MPs sit in the main hall and divide smaller groups of lawmakers into a number of chambers in the building. But then everyone would have to come to Kuala Lumpur, which would present most of the risks that come with a full session.”
A third option, he said, would be to have only MPs from Kuala Lumpur and Selangor physically attend the sitting, while other MPs participate via live feeds.
Salleh said Malaysia, which uses the Westminster parliamentary system, could take a page from the founders of the parliamentary model, the United Kingdom itself. The UK is using a hybrid of virtual and physical formats, where members in the chamber and others participate via video conference.
Salleh believed that this way, Parliament could also meet for a proper two-week sitting. This, he added, was the minimum meeting period as per convention and would allow the House to address the people’s woes and other parliamentary affairs.
Constitutional lawyer Lim Wei Jiet agreed that it was not difficult for Parliament to kick-start virtual sessions.
“I frankly do not see why Parliament would be averse or hesitate to adopt remote sittings as the UK, Maldives and other countries have done this with great success.”
He also said no law had to be changed to enable this.
“However, with or without a remote sitting, the government should arrange for a two-week sitting at least to address rudimentary parliamentary business or functions.”
Lim said this was especially timely after the recent announcement that there would be no sitting after the king’s speech on May 18 due to the Covid-19 outbreak.
He added that even if Dewan Rakyat did not convene after more than six months of the last sitting, it did not mean that the House was automatically dissolved.
“At most, what the opposition can do when the six months have lapsed is go to court and seek an order for it to convene.”
Earlier, Salleh said Article 55 Clause (1) of the Federal Constitution merely stated that the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong could not allow for more than six months to lapse between the last sitting of Parliament’s previous session and the first meeting of its next session.
“That rule must be obeyed. That’s all, the consequence of this is that we will have a hibernating legislature and our system of parliamentary democracy will be non-functioning.”