DAP leaders have called for changes to rules under the Dewan Rakyat Standing Order which, they say, work against opposition representatives.

In a letter sent today to Speaker Mohamed Zahir Ismail ( photo ), they cited "shortcomings" in the rules of proceedings and proposed improvements to facilitate effective representation of the rakyat.

'Curb Speaker's powers

'

Speaking to reporters at the Parliament lobby, Tanjong MP Chow Kon Yeow listed provisions for review - these range from the Speaker's powers to allocation of time for the proceedings.

Chow called particular attention to Standing Order 18, which gives the Speaker the authority to reject motions in chambers.

"In the past, the Speaker was not so strict...we were at least allowed to read our motion in the House so that the issues we want to raise are at least made known," he said.

"When it was later felt that (opposition MPs) were using this avenue to gain publicity, the Speaker started exercising his power stringently to reject motions in chambers."

Standing Order 43 states that the Speaker's decision o­n all matters is final, although a clause allows those unhappy with the decision to bring a motion asking for a review, Chow said.

"However, the review is done by the Speaker himself, while a two-day period of notice is required for the motion. So while there is an opportunity for review, the chances of our getting a reversal is practically zero," he said.

Accountability factor

Chow, who is also DAP Human Rights Bureau chairperson, said other rules which ought to be reconsidered are those often used by ministers to avoid answering questions o­n policy matters.

"The Standing Order allows for MPs to decline to give way to someone seeking clarification. However, ministers should not be allowed to use this rule - their duty is to justify and defend government policies, so they cannot be allowed to escape scrutiny by using the rule," he said.

He also took issue with Standing Order 12(1), which gives priority to government matters, and Standing Order 22(4), which gives the right to representatives to submit written replies to questions.

"At each sitting, opposition parliamentarians are never given any opportunity to debate issues despite raising 15 to 20 motions. We propose a system such as that practised in the British Parliament where certain days of the week are allocated specially for opposition matters," he said.

Complaining too that MPs seldom receive the written replies due to them, he commented: "Sometimes it takes between six months to a year before we receive a response...sometimes, not at all."

He suggested that time allocated for debate be extended, particularly in relation to topics such as the budget, budget supplementary estimates and issues raised during the Royal address.

"Standing Order 66 and 67 and other relevant provisions should be amended to increase allocated time to allow the participation of all interested MPs - and for government representatives to fully present their arguments," he added.