I have read some news report regarding the first day proceeding in Parliament on 30.4.2008. Also, met some voters who shared their views about the session which was live telecast.

There were some positive and negative response. What then is my thoughts and feelings about the said session? This is Chamber of Thoughts. :0

The exchanges between the opposition, BN and the Speaker could have been avoided and taken shorter time, if only, equal respect is accorded to each other.

The Parliamentary report (Hansard) is already up on the website at www.parlimen.gov.my. Please click on it and read for yourself.

It started with Karpal Singh asking the Speaker about the validity of the swearing in on 28.4.2008. Some may say that why did Karpal raise it now, 2 days later? I am not going to speak for him. The little I know about Karpal, he reads. He still reads the standing order (rule of the House) and brings along with him. Most of us, hardly do so.

He raised it as point of order politely. If the Speaker had replied him properly, taking into consideration of the said point raised instead of giving back by saying the following:-

Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Ahli Yang Berhormat daripada Bukit Gelugor, hal angkat
sumpah ini sudah pun selesai dua hari yang lalu. [Tepuk] Semua mengiktiraf bahawa
yang mengangkat sumpah itu sudah sah menjadi Ahli-ahli Parlimen.
Tuan R. Karpal Singh [Bukit Gelugor]: Ini perkara yang boleh nullify…
Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Saya tidak berpendapat begitu, Yang Berhormat Bukit
Gelugor. Kita masih ada lagi perkara-perkara yang hendak dibincang dalam Parlimen
ini perkara yang penting daripada perkara seperti begitu. Saya sudah buat keputusan,
DR. 30.4.2008 3
Yang Berhormat daripada Bukit Gelugor, dan saya rasa keputusan saya adalah
muktamad. Angkat sumpah itu semuanya sah.
Tuan R. Karpal Singh [Bukit Gelugor]: [Masih meneruskan percakapan tanpa
menggunakan pembesar suara]
Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Ahli Yang Berhormat daripada Bukit Gelugor, saya
sudah buat keputusan. Itu adalah precedentnya daripada dahulu bukan yang baru
dibuat.
Tuan R. Karpal Singh [Bukit Gelugor]: Bukankah precedent itu pun illegal,
tidak sah. Semua tidak sah.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Saya sudah buat keputusan bahawa ia sah dan itu
adalah keputusan saya. [Tepuk]
Tuan R. Karpal Singh [Bukit Gelugor]: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, bolehkah saya
dapat sebab-sebabnya di mana keputusan Tuan Yang di-Pertua adalah sah.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat termasuk Yang Berhormat
Bukit Gelugor, apabila Speaker bercakap dalam persidangan harus semua diam. Itu
peraturan tetap. Apa yang dibangkitkan oleh Yang Berhormat Bukit Gelugor adalah
peraturan point of order, peraturan tetap. Saya juga telah membuat keputusan bahawa
semua yang mengangkat sumpah pada hari itu semuanya sah dan keputusan saya
adalah muktamad, dan tidak boleh untuk disoalkan lagi. Itu keputusan muktamad.
Kalau umpamanya
I would sum it as the lack of due respect given to the point raised by an opposition. At that point of time, I still could tolerate the reply.

Then, came the second point of order, seeking for clarification of the sitting of YB Pasir Mas. In the recent general election, Datuk Ibrahim Ali contested Pasir Mas seat on the ticket of PAS, and now, he is listed as an Independent in the House. How come the MP for Sg Siput and MP of Wangsa Maju are seated as MP from PKR?

Is it that one has a choice to decide in such a situation? It was reported that MP for Bachok, Nasharuddin said that Datuk Ibrahim Ali is an independent MP, he was not bound by Pakatan’s whip.

On the ballot paper, Ibrahim Ali used the PAS logo. Correct me if I am wrong.

The Speaker decides on the sitting of MPs. In such a scenario, Datuk Ibrahim Ali has some kind of “flexibility”? As such, the point of order raised by Karpal, the Speaker needs to clarify.

The Speaker could have requested for some time to ponder at the point raised by Karpal and get back to him later.

Thirdly, you have the point of order raised by Azmin Ali, MP for Gombak regarding the listing of the question in the order paper. Azmin Ali asked the speaker why the question raised by the Opposition Leader was not listed as question No. 1 and this is about respect and recognition to her position.

The Speaker replied that he has only endorsed the YB Permatang Pauh, awhile ago. Further, he only received the letter of appointment from the leaders of opposition leader last evening. He was sworn in two days ago. He asked for time. He went on to agree with the argument raised by YB Kinabatangan that there is no rule provided in the Standing Order regarding the point raised by Azmin Ali.

Acceptable reply from the Speaker?

It is my views that those were only excuses. It is not acceptable to me.

Correct me if I am wrong. It was known to the public that YB Permatang Pauh is the opposition leader before the session starts. Her seat is first row and facing the PM direct. That is an opposition leader’s seat.
Further, she was invited to the luncheon with the Yang Di Pertuan Agong during the opening ceremony of the Parliament on Tuesday.

In short, long before the swearing in, it was to public knowledge that Datin Seri Wan Azizah will be the opposition leader, but, funny, it was not to the knowledge of the Speaker.

If only, he gives equal respect to the opposition.

Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat, kalau Ahli-ahli Yang
Berhormat semua membuat peranan seperti begini, pada hari ini negara Malaysia
tertumpu pada Dewan yang mulia ini. Yang dibangkitkan ini adalah soal-soal teknikal
DR. 30.4.2008
8
dan remeh, sedangkan soalan-soalan yang kita akan jawab, soalan yang akan
dikemukakan adalah lebih penting daripada soalan-soalan remeh.
Keputusan saya adalah baru tadi dimasyhurkan bahawa wakil rakyat daripada
Permatang Pauh adalah sah sebagai Ketua Pembangkang. [Tepuk].
􀂄 1020
Surat itu yang ditandatangani oleh semua ketua-ketua parti, baru saya terima
petang kelmarin. Maka segala apa urusan mesyuarat mengenai dengan soalan-soalan
ini, harus Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat sedia maklum bahawa saya baru angkat sumpah
sebagai Tuan Yang di-Pertua dua hari yang lalu. Bagilah peluang kepada Tuan Yang
di-Pertua. Lama lagi ini bertahun-tahun. Mudah-mudahan.
Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali [Gombak]: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya ingin
pohon penjelasan.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Sudahlah Yang Berhormat, sudah.
Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali [Gombak]: Apakah Tuan Yang di-Pertua
memberi jaminan, mulai esok Tuan Yang di-Pertua akan teliti semula urutan Pertanyaan
Lisan dalam Dewan Rakyat.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Sudah. Sebelum saya memanggil untuk soalan pertama
dipanggil, saya bersetuju dengan Yang Berhormat Kinabatangan bahawa tidak ada
termaktub pun dalam peraturan tetap soalan mana yang perlu wujud didahulukan.
[Dewan riuh][Tepuk] Ini adalah soal convention. Soal political convention, tetapi itu pun
tertakluk kepada budi bicara Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Jadi itu adalah kuasa Tuan Yang di-
Pertua. Jadi untuk tidak menghabiskan masa lagi, sekarang kita tumpukan perhatian
kepada soalan-soalan yang telah dikemukakan oleh wakil rakyat. Soalan pertama,
Tuan Razali bin Haji Ibrahim.

Fourthly, the point of order raised regarding the decision of the Speaker not to allow any supplementary question.

It was the first meeting after the general election on March 8. This is the first time the PM took the time off to attend this first day Parliamentary meeting after the opening ceremony by he King. Previously, he was not seen in the House the next day after the opening ceremony by the King.

It is unsual for the first time Speaker to make such a decision not to allow supplementary question to a question which is going to be reply by the Prime Minister, who was here to answer the question personally.

Do you expect the opposition MPs to just keep queit about such decision of the Speaker? It was a rare opportunity to have the PM to be here to answer questions. (previously). I do not see him today. He gave the reason that much time has been wasted earlier. To me, that was unacceptable.

He changed his decision the moment the PM said he is willing to answer one or two supplementary question.

If only the Speaker was giving the equal respect to opposition MPs, all the time which he claimed has been wasted for raising technical and minor matter, could have been avoided.

Yang di-Pertua: Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat, kalau Ahli-ahli Yang
Berhormat semua membuat peranan seperti begini, pada hari ini negara Malaysia
tertumpu pada Dewan yang mulia ini. Yang dibangkitkan ini adalah soal-soal teknikal
DR. 30.4.2008
8
dan remeh, sedangkan soalan-soalan yang kita akan jawab, soalan yang akan
dikemukakan adalah lebih penting daripada soalan-soalan remeh.

Fifthly,the question submitted by MP for Kinabatangan was more than 40 words. This is against the rules of the House. However, it was allowed to be listed as question no. 2 of the order paper. Why? This is a minor and technical matter?

Here is the reply by the Speaker:-

Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Saya sudah tahu apa maksud point of order yang Yang
Berhormat bangkitkan tadi. Saya tahu. Tapi apabila sesuatu soalan telah dimasukkan
dalam kertas Peraturan Mesyuarat, bermakna Pejabat Tuan Yang di-Pertua telah
menimbangkan supaya ianya boleh dimasukkan kerana nanti ada mungkin daripada
pihak Yang Berhormat pula yang bertanya panjang sikit, pun kalau kita timbang, perlu
untuk dijawab oleh Menteri kerana kepentingan rakyat maka kita pun masukkan juga lah
pada masa-masa akan datang.

Despite the rule of the House stated clearly that a question for Oral Reply shall not exceed forty words, the Speaker gave the reason that it was for the interest of the people and as such inserted it into the order paper.

In other words, the Speaker have the discretion to apply the rules of the House and the concept of “in the interest of the people” on case to case basis?

If so, why did he reject the emergency motion raised by MP for Kubang Kerian. The emergency motion was about the agreement of the Petroleum royalty.

The Speaker rejected the motion on the ground that it was not an urgent matter for debate and said the MP could raise it during the debate of motion of thanks to the King. Isn’t the issue raised by MP of Kubang Kerian is in the interest of the people, by applying the concept which he applied earlier in allowing the question of YB Kinabatangan.

The hansard for 30.4.2008 is up on the website. Please read the details, if you are interested.

I have used the key word search on the said hansard. I did not search for my name but the word “kuasa”. The Speaker used 20 times the word “kuasa” (power).

Thus I conclude that, if only, the Speaker and all MPs respect each others role in the House FOR the People and Nation, I believe the meeting would have proceeded smoothly.

Certainly, I disagree with the name callings.

The BN have been having more than 2/3 majority and they are so used to “running” the House they manner they want it. They are not used to having 81 opposition MPs in the House. If the opposition MPs just kept quiet and did not raise the said point of orders, they will continue to disregard the rules and set more bad precedents.

In Parliament, the BN must now learn the element of giving equal respect to opposition in the House. In an interview, the Speaker call on the MPs to stick to the rules (NST, 26.4.2008)I do hope the Speaker will also discharge his duties for the interest of the People and Nation.

I hope there will not be a motion be moved to suspend me for writing this thoughts of mine here, in my Chamber of Thoughts.:)