IT is interesting that Dewan Rakyat Speaker Azhar Azizan Harun has referred to standing order (SO) 14 in his setting the record straight on no-confidence motion. 

I have similarly shared my thoughts on SO14 and offered my two cents – I wasn’t emotional nor political – that the government’s order of business for the May 18 sitting of Parliament as notified to the members of parliament with “no oral question sessions, written questions, motions, and special chambers” and only “the presentation of government bills” was against SO14. 

SO14(1) states that unless the house otherwise directs, the business of each sitting shall be transacted in the order enumerated therein: (a)-(q). It is called the order of business.

The house may proceed to any particular business out of the order of business but this must be upon a motion (to be moved by a minister) to be decided without amendment or debate which may be made without notice. The house must then pass the motion.

Thus, it was submitted that the order of business on May 18 must be in accordance with SO14 until and unless the Dewan Rakyat was moved to agree that the Dewan proceeded to any particular business out of the regular order.

Was there a motion by a minister to truncate the order of business on May 18?

If no, does that make it illegal?

The short answer is, “No.”

SOs are internal rules of Parliament. Each house (Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara) has its own SOs. Each set of SOs was passed by the relevant house but not by Parliament – Parliament being both houses.

So SOs are not law as Azhar would like to argue. It is tenuous for Azhar to say that “when a piece of law expressly sets out a legal position, that law must be enforced. That would leave out any room for the exercise of a discretion. Any exercise of ‘discretion’ in the face of a contrary or prohibitive legal proposition would be ultra vires the law. It would be an abuse. Or an illegality.”

The use of the word illegality is, respectfully, over the top – pardon the pun.

Contrary to Azhar’s assertion, the speaker has the discretion under SO99 to decide upon any point of interpretation of any SO, or upon any matter of practice, and he may from time to time issue rulings thereon.

Importantly as well, where in making any decision there has been a failure to comply with any provision of the SOs, such failure shall be treated as an irregularity and shall not nullify the proceedings. (SO99A)

Put simply, there is no nullity because there is no illegality in respect of parliamentary proceedings –only irregularity. This in turn is because Article 62(1) of the federal constitution empowers each house of parliament to regulate its own procedure.

And the constitution is the highest law of the law.

Respectfully, Azhar’s “setting the record straight” appears more like the Malay saying: hendak seribu daya, tak hendak seribu dalih.

Pardon the pun. – October 16, 2020.

* Hafiz Hassan reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.