Just after the prayer and before the Question and Answer, the Deputy Speaker made a ruling that no MPs can raise point of order during Question and Answer Time. The reason given was to ensure more questions can be raised ( until 12 questions) and the Deputy Speaker said that it is the practice in some Commonwealth Parliaments.

Oh mine! Such a ruling has great effect. It means that MPs can do and say whatever they wish in the House during the first 1 1/2 hours because no rules apply to them ie an MP can mislead the House, make wild accusations and use seditious words !

Why such ruling? Indeed, some MPs did raise the standing orders during Question and Answer hour not at appropriate time or for a good reason. Perhaps, to have their face appear in the live telecast proceeding and let their voters see that they indeed “perform” or present in the House. Also, it is possible that they were not treated “fairly” / “lucky” in the arrangement of the questions, to be in the top 5 questions of the day. As such, they have to resort to raising standing orders to express their disagreement and to get the attention of the Speaker.What about some who raise point of orders with good faith? It does not make sense for the first 1 1/2 hours of the proceeding in the House not bound by any rules!

If it is to ensure more questions can be raised, then, extend the question and answer time . If some MPs want to have their face appear in the tv, then, the solution is to have a full day live telecast proceeding or air a delayed recorded proceeding. Then, the voters can judge if their MPs speak up for them or not.

If Parliament Malaysia wants to follow practices of other Commonwealth Parliament, then, it should adopt the practices which can improve our current proceedings and not selective application only. For example, why not live telecast the whole proceedings? Why not allocate half and hour of PM question time on Wednesday? The incident that happened yesterday in allowing the DPM to “add on” to the speech of PM on mid term review of 9th Malaysia Plan which the latter delivered last Friday, it was not a practice of other Commonwealth Parliament.

Later, after the Question and Answer hour, the Deputy Speaker said that MPs can raise point of orders for “obvious situations” ( melainkan situasi-situasi terlalu nyata).

If MPs are not allowed to raise point of orders, then, how could the Speaker knows that the point of order is “acceptable” to him, falls within the ambit of “obvious situation.”I am now confused.

Blanket Ban for first one and half hour of the sitting or the situation now is back to “normal”?

I have submitted the below question because I was asked to raise it when I met a voter in Stadium Perak a few months ago. She walked to me and said that the report regarding the high number unreturned of postal votes (or posted ballot paper ?) was serious. I told her that I did not read about it and would check the news archieve. (more…)

This is the copy of controversial letter which is related to the protest of the media in Parliament. It was more than what was stated in the said letter. Certain public areas in the Parliament - No Entry- to the Media, on the ground of SAFETY.

Today’s session started with the motion by the government to seek support for the increase of fuel price and related measures. I heard interesting points raised with figures to support their arguments. If it was live telecast, it would be useful for all to assess the arguments, perhaps, then, you may not be so angry or angrier.

Indeed it was to some extend a very intellectual debate, for a person like me, who is not good at figures. (more…)

I have copied the proposed motion to be tabled on Monday, 23.6.2008 in Parliament by the Minister of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs. Read below.

Why was not a motion be tabled earlier by the government to seek co-operation, support and solution to face the challenges before the fuel hike announcement on 5.6.2008? Why now? (more…)