KOTA KINABALU – Sabah’s state assembly speaker Datuk Kadzim Yahya again rejected opposition leader Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Apdal’s application to debate on the Sulu sultanate issue despite having filed the motion on time.
Kadzim had initially rejected the first application on Monday, citing that the motion was filed less than 24 hours before the assembly session was due to convene.
Shafie stood up and cited Standing Order 31 at the start of the assembly sitting today to follow up on his application, but was instantly shot down by the speaker.
“I submitted my letter on Monday afternoon.
“It is an application to debate on the matter of (Sabah’s) security, not on Spain or Azerbaijan. This is an existing threat which I think is of utmost importance.
“We do not want (to debate this) later, Datuk Speaker. When they (the Sulu sultanate heirs) have the money, unwanted incidents will happen to Sabah,” he said, in defending his right to debate the motion.
Shafie was referring to the arbitration case currently being pursued by the heirs of the Sulu sultanate, which was initiated in Spain and has since transferred to Paris.
Kadzim then cited Standing Order 23A(2), adding that any rejected motions will not be debated again.
The speaker also noted that he was aware of his call to reject Shafie’s motion on Monday due to the 24-hour timeframe, but maintained that the motion will not be debated regardless of the reason behind the rejection.
Toward this end, Shafie stressed the Sulu sultanate heir issue is important, as it involves the security and safety of the people in Sabah.
“I appeal to you, Datuk Speaker (to have this motion debated). But I won’t go against you if you reject the motion.
“But I want to put it on record that the assembly still rejected my second application. I must be very persistent and consistent when it comes to the interest of Sabah,” he said.
To this, Kadzim urged Shafie to refer to Standing Order PP 5(2), which reads, “Upon that motion, debates may take place in which not more than four separate matters for which the cabinet is responsible may be raised by members who have obtained the right to raise those matters on the motion for the adjournment that day.” – The Vibes, July 21, 2022
.jpeg)
