PREVIOUSLY, I labelled the defeat of extending section 4(5) of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) as a political blunder by Home Minister Hamzah Zainudin that we should all rejoice.

However, under Malaysia’s rigged political system, the minister was immune from any political punishment for leading his government to an embarrassing defeat in the Dewan Rakyat.

Additionally, the playing field is so uneven that the minister could even reverse a defeated motion by brazenly abusing parliamentary procedures with the complicity of the speaker.

As of now, the motion to extend section 4(5) of Sosma remains defeated. What instead transpired in Parliament on July 20 was that Hamzah has moved to revoke the previously defeated motion, so it can effectively be tabled again.

According to Dewan Rakyat Speaker Azhar Azizan Harun, this motion is unprecedented solely because previous governments have never suffered defeats in the Dewan Rakyat and therefore had no need to cancel motions.

For the house to again consider the motion, Hamzah has tabled it under Standing Order 36(3), which states that it shall be out of order to attempt to reconsider any specific question upon which the House has come to a conclusion during the current session, except upon a substantive motion for rescission.

It is indeed wrong for the House to reconsider any specific question upon which it has decided, but the standing order has provided an exception that a substantive motion could potentially revoke it.

Even setting aside whether a motion to cancel another could be construed as substantive, it is my opinion that Standing Order 36(3) is inherently flawed because of the exceptions of allowing such a rescission.

You would wonder why it is so dangerous for a government to do this. By doing so, I am afraid the Dewan Rakyat has also created a precedent whereby any government defeats in the House can be reversed and the government will keep trying till it has its way.

In this case, the Dewan Rakyat has once again failed to hold the executive’s feet to the fire, for it is powerless to defend the collective will made during March when the Sosma motion was defeated.

The issue that the Dewan Rakyat should not entertain a question that has been decided during the same session was also recently raised when the UK was grappling its relationship with Europe during the Brexit vote in Parliament.

In a rather shocking but correct move, the then speaker of the House, John Bercow rejected then prime minister Theresa May’s attempt to table a third vote on her Brexit deal.

According to Bercow, the government cannot legitimately resubmit to the House the same, or substantially the same, proposition that had recently been rejected in the same session.

Bercow’s controversial move was solely to defend the integrity of parliament. If the government could keep submitting motions that were voted down, the government could essentially bully the house into to answering the same issues that MPs have rejected.

If that is the case, government defeats are meaningless and inconsequential because the government could just easily table the same motion and start the process all over again.

The legislative process could be abused by constantly submitting the same motions till the government gets what it wants.

If that is the case, voting in the House is merely a formality and perhaps an act of toothless defiance by the opposition.

In the case of Sosma, whether it is a blunder or revolt by government rebels, the House has made an indisputably clear decision that it chooses to reject the extension of section 4(5).

Therefore, it was disappointing and unbelievable to witness the speaker, also being the first defender of the Dewan Rakyat, allowing the home minister to submit the revocation motion.

Lastly, Azhar was disappointed when his ruling on the Sulu debate was questioned, and he backed his arguments by quoting Erskine May who is considered to be the doyen of Westminster parliamentary procedure.

It is also worth reminding the speaker that the same Erskine May has also stated a motion should be ruled out of order if it is “the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided”, to prevent the executive bullying the legislature.

I am afraid the culture of bullying the legislature by the executive has only worsened under him. – July 24, 2022.

* Kenneth Cheng has always been interested in the interplay between human rights and government but more importantly he is a father of two cats, Tangyuan and Toufu. When he is not attending to his feline matters, he is most likely reading books about politics and human rights or playing video games. He is a firm believer in the dictum “power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will”.

* 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.