(Media Conference Statement at Perak DAP Hqrs in Ipoh on Saturday, 24th May 2008)
The 54th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference on “Expanding the role of Parliament in Global Society” will be held in Kuala Lumpur from August 1 to 10, 2008 and it should be a matter of pride to Malaysian Members of Parliament that the country has been given the honour to play host to the annual conference for the Commonwealth’s 172 Parliaments and legislatures.
Malaysia spent about RM7 million to host a much smaller parliamentary conference last year – the 28th Asean Inter-Parliamentary Assembly (AIPA) in Kuala Lumpur last August involving nine ASEAN nations.
The cost for hosting the 54th Conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association will be many times more than organising the AIPA Assemby and I will ask in Parliament on Monday how much the Malaysian taxpayers will have to bear for Malaysia hosting the August Conference – whether RM20 – RM30 million or even more.
Apart from the cost of the CPA Conference in August, another equally important question is its purpose.
This is because it would be shameful for Malaysia to host the 54th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference on “Expanding the role of Parliament in global society” on August 1 – 10 when the role of Malaysian MPs are being diminished and cannot even move an amendment to the Motion of Thanks for Royal Address, as happened on Thursday when my amendment motion to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry to resolve the 30-year problem of illegal immigrants in Sabah was disallowed by the Deputy Speaker, Datuk Ronald Kiandee on the ground of being “irrelevant” to the motion proper.
Can Ronald Kiandee cite another Commonwealth Parliament which disallows amendments to the equivalent of Motion of Thanks for the Royal Address on the ground that it is “irrelevant”?
In the House of Commons, amendments to the Motion of Thanks to the Royal Address are routinely allowed every year, which are debated and then voted on. One such amendment to the Motion of Thanks for the Queen’s Gracious Speech, which was moved, debated but rejected in the House of Commons in 2000, proposed an amendment to the original motion as follows:
‘But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech makes no mention of the decline in police numbers since 1997; note the continuing failure of many of the Government’s measures to combat youth crime and that the Government remains committed to the early release from jail of thousands of criminals; deplore the Government’s further attempt to restrict the right to trial by jury and its failure to put forward any measures to strengthen the rights of victims of crime, or to make prisons more purposeful, or sentencing more transparent, or to clear up the chaos in the asylum system; and further regret the absence of measures to halt the decline of inner cities and the failure to create a coherent programme of actions since 1997 to address the conditions that give rise to the growth of crime in deprived urban areas, notably poorly-maintained housing, rising homelessness, increasing numbers of empty houses and failing inner city schools, which have combined with the Government’s commitment to building on green fields to perpetuate migration from inner cities.’
If Ronald Kiandee had presided as House of Commons Speaker, he would have ruled the amendment as “irrelevant” which would be completely unthinkable in the British Parliament!
In Lok Sabha or Indian Parliament every year, there would be scores and in some years even over a hundred amendments to the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address, and they would all be voted on by the MPs without anyone being ruled as “irrelevant” by the Speaker of Indian Parliament.
During the 54th Commonwealth Parliamentay Conference in Kuala Lumpur in early August, another conference on parliamentary practice and administration is being organised by the Society of Clerks-at-the-Table – and it would be mortally disgraceful if Malaysia proves to be the only Parliament in the Commonwealth where amendments to the Motion of Thanks for the Royal Address is not allowed, making the Malaysian Parliament a Commonwealth “curiosity” and laughing stock at the 54th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference!
What is even more shocking is that Ronald Kiandee had violated a very clear precedent by the longest-serving Speaker in Malaysia, Tun Mohamad Zahir Ismail, who had allowed me to move an amendment to the Motion of Thanks for the Royal Address in October 1982.
What grounds and authority have Ronald Kiandee as Deputy Speaker to violate clear parliamentary practices and precedents both in Malaysia and other Commonwealth Parliaments to disallow my amendment to the Motion of Thanks in Parliament last Thursday?
I have given notice to the Speaker of Parliament, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin, to review and overrule the wrong and misconceived decision of Ronald Kiandee in disallowing my amendment motion in Parliament last Thursday to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry to resolve the 30-year problem of illegal immigrants in Sabah.
Such a motion under Standing Order 43 of the Dewan Rakyat is regarded as a “substantive motion” which does not require notice of more than two days – in other words, it is regarded as a “top priority” parliamentary business which must be given precedence for debate and decision by way of voting by MPs.
If my substantive motion to review and overrule Ronald Kiandee’s ruling last Thursday is not allowed to be debated before Parliament adjourns next week, then the Malaysian Parliament would have two reasons to become a laughing-stock in the 54th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in August,
• Where an amendment to the Motion of Thanks for the Royal Address is not allowed; and
• Where a substantive motion to review the ruling of the Chair is also not allowed to be debated and voted on.
If this is the case, then Parliament and Malaysians must decide whether any useful purpose could be served in Malaysia hosting the 54th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in August.