DR Mahathir Mohamad is the latest eminent figure to join calls for the Dewan Rakyat to sit for at least two weeks.

A joint statement by him and Pakatan Harapan and Warisan leaders said there is no excuse for the government to limit the session to only one day – May 18 – now that Putrajaya has eased restrictions with the conditional movement-control order (CMCO).

Meanwhile, Malaysians have come out in support of a petition started by former Umno MP Tawfik Ismail calling for a virtual, full sitting.

According to Taufik, a virtual session will enable lawmakers to comply with the MCO and work at the same time. It appears that eminent Malaysians are among those who signed the petition, including constitutional expert Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi and former Bar president Ambiga Sreenevasan.

Shad Saleem has expressed his learned opinion that a one-day sitting on May 18 is in line with the federal constitution, although it would be “regrettable”.

He said it fulfils the criteria of Article 55(1) of the constitution, which states that the Dewan Rakyat shall reconvene not more than six months of the last sitting.

“The constitution does not prescribe the number of days, sittings and meetings that must take place,” he was quoted as saying.

Dewan Rakyat Speaker Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof has said it is within the government’s constitutional rights to meet “even for a day”, so long as it is within six months of the last sitting.

Now, the word “sitting” is not defined either in the constitution or Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 (Act 388). But, the Standing Orders (SOs) of the Dewan Rakyat do.

SO 98 defines “sitting” to mean a period during which the House is sitting continuously (apart from a suspension) without adjournment, and includes any period during which the House is in Committee.

So, when Article 55(1) is read with SO 98, it does mean that Parliament must sit within six months from its last sitting, and such a sitting must be continuous without adjournment, unless it is suspended.

In comparison, the SOs of the Singaporean Parliament have a more elaborate definition of “sitting”. It means a period during which Parliament is meeting continuously from its commencement till it adjourns for the day, including any period during which Parliament is in Committee.

So, it could still be moot whether a one-day sitting is constitutional and not in breach of SOs.

SOs are meant to be complied with, even though non-compliance is an irregularity and does not nullify the House’s proceedings (SO 99A).

Now, SO 14(1) sets out what should be the regular order of business of any parliamentary sitting. It states that the business of each sitting “shall be transacted” in the order enumerated therein.

However, the House may proceed with any business out of the regular order, but this must be by way of a parliamentary motion, which does not require notice to be given (SO 26(1)(d)). And, the motion must be passed by the House.

Given this, a one-day parliamentary sitting with its stated order of business on May 18, as notified by Dewan Rakyat Secretary Riduan Rahmat in a letter to MPs, looks to be more than “regrettable” – and something to ponder. – May 6, 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.