Parliamentary Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang today threatened to move an unprecedented motion of no-confidence against Parliament Speaker Dr Mohamed Zahir Ismail over the impeachment motion of the Election Commission (EC) chairperson and commissioners.

Lim, the DAP chairperson and Ipoh Timor MP, submitted a substantive motion under standing order 43 today to review the speaker's earlier decision.

Mohamed Zahir had struck off Lim's motion on the ground that it could be sub judice as several election petitions were still pending in courts nationwide.

"As a substantive motion under standing order 43 does not require more than two days notice, unlike ordinary motions which under standing order 27(3) requires at least 14 days notice, Parliament should debate my substantive motion after the conclusion of the debate on the Royal Address next Tuesday," Lim told a press conference at his office in Parliament today.

'Adverse implications'

He said the speaker's decision to strike out the impeachment motion was "most improper, arbitrary and unparliamentary".

The speaker had earlier told the press that he would not entertain the opposition leader's new motion to ask for a review and his earlier ruling stands.

To this, Lim said the pre-rejection was "bizarre and unthinkable".

"I found the notion of a rejection or disallowance of a substantive motion to review the speaker's decision as provided under the standing orders on the ground of sub judice so bizarre and unthinkable because of its far-reaching adverse implications of fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy and good governance," he claimed.

The veteran politician said if the speaker rejects his new motion, he would have no other option but to "seriously consider" a motion of no-confidence against the speaker.

"(It) will be the first time in the 45-year Malaysian parliamentary history and will be most unfortunate, and not something I will relish," he added.

Lim's deputy, Bukit Gelugor MP Karpal Singh also rapped the speaker yesterday for consulting Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail before dismissing the impeachment motion.

Karpal argued the consultation was inappropriate since the AG is a government staff.

New motion received

In an immediate response to Lim's threat of a motion of a no-confidence, Mohamed Zahir said, "It's up to him".

The speaker confirmed he has received a new motion submitted by Lim but said whether it will be debated or not will depend on the dewan proceedings.

"The motion will in the (order) paper, but whether the motion can be heard or not will depend on the time available for non-government motions because government matters takes priority," he told malaysiakini when met in his office.

Asked to comment on Lim's and Karpal's open criticisms against his handling of the impeachment motion, Mohamed Zahir said he dealt with the issue as the speaker of the House and it was not something personal.

"But to criticise me is within their right. It's alright," he added.

The speaker also stressed that his decision to strike off Lim's impeachment motion was made impartially and was not influenced by the AG.

"I can consult anyone, there is no restriction. I always consult my staff too," he said.

The speaker said a discussion on the overall conduct of the election could still affect judges' decision on the pending election petitions although they are only filed for certain constituencies.

"There are so many cases and they cover many aspects of the law. The impeachment motion, although quite general, may also include small details and particulars of each case," Mohamed Zahir who is also a retired High Court judge explained.

"Although parliamentarians are granted with immunity and privileges to speak in the House, we must abide by standing order 36(2) too - which disallows us to discuss matters pending or being tried in court. We must understand what we are not permitted to do," he said

"Now, that should also not be seen as a violation of freedom of speech," the speaker added.

For the record, DAP Batu Gajah MP Fong Po Kuan was suspended for six months without allowance in 2001 after openly criticising the speaker for rejecting her motion to debate the scandal of the Certificate of Legal Practice.