AFTER the shocking announcement of the unprecedented “no-debate” parliament sitting, another bombshell was dropped amidst the political crisis. The Dewan Rakyat speaker yesterday announced the appointment of the new parliament secretary. Nizam Mydin Bacah Mydin’s appointment came into force on May 13.. 

In the same statement, the speaker thanked the former secretary, Riduan Rahmat who was appointed just before the Sheraton Move when his predecessor, Roosme Hamzah went on mandatory retirement after her contract ended in February. Roosme was the first Dewan Rakyat secretary in the country’s history.

It is reported that Riduan now holds the position of the Dewan Negara management secretary, the old position that he held before he became the Dewan Rakyat secretary.

It is unclear on whether Riduan was removed from his position. We are less than a week away to the next parliament sitting. No reason has been given as to the sudden replacement of the secretary. This has sparked debate on whether Riduan’s “removal” is constitutional.

What does the federal constitution say?

Article 65(1) of the Federal Constitution states that the Clerk to the House of Representatives shall hold office “until he attains the age of compulsory retirement for members of the general public service unless he sooner resigns his office or is transferred to another office in the general public service”.

It appears that Riduan has been transferred to another office. Hence, the issue of removal does not arise.

However, for completeness, let us look at the law on the removal of the Dewan Rakyat secretary.

Article 65(3) of the Constitution explains that a Dewan Rakyat secretary should be only be removed on the “like grounds” and in the “like manner” as a judge of the Federal Court. Article 125(3) lays down the grounds of the removal of a Federal Court judge. A Federal Court judge ought to be removed if he or she:

(a) breaches the code of ethics; or

(b) suffers any infirmity of body or mind or any other cause that disallows him or her to properly discharge the functions of a judge.

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong will then appoint a tribunal comprising not less than five sitting or former Federal Court, Court of Appeal or High Court judges. In exceptional circumstances, any persons who hold or have held equivalent positions in the Commonwealth jurisdictions can be appointed to the tribunal. The tribunal then makes its finding and may recommend the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to remove the judge in question.

Similarly, a Dewan Rakyat secretary can be removed from his if he breaches any code of ethics when performing his duties. He can also be removed if he suffers from any physical or mental illness that hinders his ability to carry out the duties. The Dewan Rakyat speaker shall then make representation to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as to the reason why the secretary should be removed from his office. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong will refer the speaker’s representation to the tribunal and may remove the secretary on the recommendation of the tribunal.

The sudden replacement of the Dewan Rakyat secretary reignites or rather strengthens the conspiracy theory over the no confidence motion against the Prime Minister, Muhyddin Yassin. Although such a hasty move is questionable, the replacement of the secretary, on the face of it, appears to be constitutional. – May 15, 2020.

* Kee Hui Yee 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.