THE Dewan Rakyat was stunned yesterday. Ninety minutes into proceedings, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Parliament) Takiyuddin Hassan stood up to offer three responses to Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim. 

On the third response, he said as follows:

“Yang ketiga, yang terakhir, yang ketiga, please listen to me. Kerajaan telah buat keputusan berdasarkan kepada perkara 150(3) untuk membatalkan semua ordinan darurat yang telah dibuat semasa proklamasi darurat ini. Oleh kerana telah ‘direvoked’ maka isu ungkai ataupun ‘annulment’ sudah tidak lagi relevan.”

Cries of “point of order” were then heard issuing from Bagan MP Lim Guan Eng and Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo. 

The appeals for clarification were ignored by Speaker Azhar Azizan Harun, who proceeded to cal upon Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin to deliver his statement on the national recovery plan (NRP) as per the Order Paper.

What is a point of order?

A point of order is an appeal to the speaker for clarification or for a ruling on a matter of procedure in the House. An MP who wants clarification or who believes that a breach of the rules of the House has occurred, stands up and says, “Point of order, Mr Speaker”. The point of order should then be stated and the speaker is to rule on the interruption.

A point of order can be raised at any time in the proceedings, provided it is raised and concisely argued as soon as the irregularity occurs. As a point of order concerns the interpretation of the rules of procedure, it is the responsibility of the speaker to determine its merits and to resolve the issue (see rules of order and decorum, Canada House of Commons).

Points of order were raised to seek clarification from the minister that the emergency ordinances (EO) had been revoked. EOs are promulgated by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong pursuant article 150(2B) of the federal constitution. Under clause (2C) of the same article, EOs have the same force and effect as an act of Parliament, and shall continue in full force and effect as though they are an act of Parliament until they are revoked or annulled under clause (3) or until they lapses under clause (7).

The issue in the House yesterday was whether the EOs have been legally and duly revoked. The power to revoke, like the power to issue a proclamation of emergency and to promulgate an EO, vests in the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. This much is clear from the judgment of Lord Diplock in the Privy Council in the case of Teh Cheng Poh v PP (1979).

To revoke is to repeal [section 3 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 (Act 388)].

As an act of Parliament is repealed by another act, an EO must also be repealed by another EO – in the name of the Agong and published in the gazette.

Under the constitution, the cabinet advises the Agong while the latter acts on the advice of the former. In this regard, the cabinet advises the Agong to promulgate an EO pursuant to which the Agong so promulgate. Similarly, it is the cabinet to advise the Agong to revoke an EO pursuant to which the Agong so revoke the EO by another EO published in the gazette.

The Bagan and Puchong MPs were entitled to seek clarification from the minister.

The point of order was valid, Mr Speaker. The Dewan Rakyat awaits your ruling. – July 27, 2021.

* 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.