“IN the (Standing) Orders, the motions which are presented by the government comes first. After all the motions have been debated upon, then only the private motions can be moved in the Parliament.
“(But) can the Speaker do that in respect of a no-confidence vote? The answer is no because by constitutional practice, a motion of no-confidence must be brought first on the list. That is the convention or constitutional practice. it is not law. That is the constitutional practice in relation to this sort of motion.” – Datuk Azhar Azizan Harun, lawyer and rights activist, 2015
Based on that statement made five years ago, Azhar, better known as Art Harun, a respected lawyer had widely shared his stand that convention or constitutional practice clearly requires a no-confidence motion be given priority when Dewan Rakyat sits.
His stance has since clearly changed with certain caveats in place, after he was appointed Dewan Rakyat speaker and now must deal with a slew of no-confidence motions against Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.
Last Thursday, Azhar had a different take.
He now goes on to say that: “The convention is not one which entails the speaker allowing the motion to jump the queue – he’s got no such power – but rather one which entails the government agreeing to postpone its business so that the motion could be debated and voted on ahead of its business. It is therefore imperative for any such motion to be debated ahead of anything else that the government’s approval is needed.”
In any case, the speaker is not clothed with any kind of power to sort out the order of business. Pardon the pun but it is none of the speaker’s business.
Upon becoming speaker, Azhar now implies that it is not his “business” to uphold parliamentary convention and constitutional practices with regard to any no-confidence motion brought against the prime minister, even though there are now plenty of them, given the everchanging dynamics of the political.
There clearly is a disconnect between Azhar’s stand before and after he was appointed as speaker. To be fair, he still acknowledges the convention and constitutional practice of allowing a no-confidence vote against the prime minister – as he did in 2015.
Now, his stance appears to be that the parliament Standing Orders gives the government the prerogative to delay such motions for as long as it pleases.
Worse, he is insistent that its none of his “business” if the government refuses to budge.
Azhar’s stand has a familiar ring to it because previous speakers have cited similar reasons in thwarting various private bills submitted by opposition lawmakers.
The PAS sponsored hudud bill is one such glaring example, as Azhar said before his ascension as speaker.
Many legal experts said Azhar’s stance has cast further questions on Malaysia’s parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and the supremacy of the Federal Constitution.
The questions regarding the no-confidence vote are important but not all that complex: can Parliament’s Standing Orders reign over the constitution? Can a creditable motion of no-confidence against the government be circumvented by parliamentary procedures and regulations?
If it is so, should one conclude that the supremacy of the constitution is only valid outside the august hall of Parliament?
Law expert Prof Datuk Shad Saleem Faruqi had said that the parliamentary Standing Orders should not be used to reject the no-confidence motion against a prime minister.
He has described the SOs as the “internal rules of the House that should not override Article 43 (4) of the Federal Constitution which deals with the legitimacy of the Prime Minister and his support in Parliament”.
“The issue of confidence (in the Prime Minister) is not an internal matter but goes to the heart of a parliamentary democracy,” Shad Saleem was quoted as saying by this portal.
Another constitutional lawyer, Bastian Pius Vendargon said the no-confidence vote filed by opposition MPs must be allowed as it was based on the rule of law in the Federal Constitution, the supreme charter of the land and that “Parliament cannot be subservient to the executive”.
Azhar’s hands may well be tied as far as the SOs on the no-confidence vote filed by opposition MPs.
Perhaps, more worrying is his open declaration that he does not have the power, nor is it “the speaker’s business” to intervene the running order of Parliament business as determined by the SOs.
Worrying because the vote of no-confidence, if allowed to be buried, under an avalanche of government bills, impacts the principles of justice, the sanctity of the constitution and yes, the interest of the people.
It would be a sad twist of irony if political leaders can hijack Parliament SOs wantonly to cling on to power, ignoring their own solemn oath to protect and uphold the very constitution which created Parliament. – The Vibes, October 19, 2020
K. Parkaran is a veteran journalist who has worked for The Star and Al Jazeera International.
