PARLIAMENT | Dewan Rakyat speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia today railed against MPs who question the reasons behind him rejecting their questions.
Charles Santiago (PKR-Klang), had asked Pandikar to reconsider the rejection to his motion to debate the issue of child poverty in Malaysia.
Pandikar, however, lamented that MPs would be happy if a particular ruling is to their liking, but some would even resort to call for him to resign if the ruling is unfavourable.
It is believed that he was referring to three DAP MPs who yesterday demanded his resignation for disallowing an emergency motion on the seizure of a luxury yacht linked to businessman Jho Low and questions related to 1MDB.
As Santiago stood up to respond to Pandikar, the latter told him to sit down, citing sections 41, 42, 43 and 48 of the parliamentary standing orders.
"Sometimes, those who raise issues are legal practitioners, that's why I read from this," said Pandikar, holding up a book and thumping it.
"In interpreting the standing orders, the speaker does not need to give reasons," he said.
Citing the time of former speaker the late Mohamed Zahir Ismail, in which a lawmaker was taken action against for not agreeing on a ruling, Pandikar lamented how there were MPs who today, do not only fail to follow the speaker's orders but have challenged him to resign.
"What if some of you were to sit here one day and then someone challenges you to resign if the ruling does not suit your tastes?" he asked.
As Santiago attempted to speak again, Pandikar told the Dewan that he will not hesitate to take action against those who plan to protest the rejection of their questions.
Pandikar then asked G Manivannan (PKR-Kapar) whether he wanted to leave the Dewan as the latter stood up and tried to explain his party colleague's reason behind submitting the motion.
The speaker also noted how the three MPs did not say anything on the day he rejected the motion to discuss the luxury yacht, but had asked him to resign the day after.
"Sometimes I have become sick in reminding (MPs) to read Section 23(1)(c) of the standing orders, which states that a question should not contain any opinion, argument, ironical or offensive expression.
"I can reject your question if I interpret it as being ironical or offensive. Meaning, I have the right to read your question from your perspective (or) mind," he said.
Pointing out how the standing orders were in place even before his time as speaker, Pandikar wondered whether certain MPs believe that their opinions are the most comprehensive.
"That it must be followed, as though you have a big license when the one with the big license according to the standing orders is the speaker.
"It's the speaker who has the big license to use this blue book," he said, referring to the standing orders. -Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.