MP SPEAKS | The legality of the new speaker's appointment is highly questionable

MP SPEAKS | The government managed to oust the Pakatan Harapan-nominated speaker of the Lower House of Parliament with a very slim majority - only with a margin of two votes.

Thereafter, the Parliament appointed a new speaker, whose first mind-boggling duty was, inter alia, the improper ejection of an opposition MP from the House - the MP for Shah Alam, Khalid Samad.

In addition to that, the newly installed speaker also failed to make any ruling as to whether the racist remarks made by Baling MP (Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim) should have been classified as unparliamentary. His reason for such a refusal? The said MP had withdrawn his uncalled remarks. Ergo, no need for any ruling.

I questioned the speaker. Yes, the MP had withdrawn his unparliamentary remarks but the speaker never made any ruling against such remarks despite repeated calls by several MPs. With due respect, not a good performance of his first day in the office!

Anyway, my response here is on something else. It is on the legality of the appointment of a new speaker and his deputy, respectively.

First thing first. What are the laws governing such an appointment? The answer is that there are two applicable laws -the Federal Constitution and the Parliamentary Standing Orders.

Article 57 of our supreme law deals with the issue of the appointment of the parliamentary speaker and the deputy speaker respectively. As far as the Standing Orders are concerned, this issue is duly governed by Orders 3, 4 and 6, respectively.

It is common knowledge that the government, via Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin (above), has filed a few motions on the attempt of removing both the speaker and his deputy who were duly appointed by the Harapan government.

Since the present government has substantially relied on Order 3 and 4 in ousting the former speaker and his deputy, and in turn appointing a new speaker and his deputy as well, it is germane to dwell on these two orders of the Standing Orders first.

As far as I am concerned, Order 3, as lawyers used to say, in pith and substance, deals with the issue of the vacancy of the post of the speaker.

Harapan duly maintained that no such vacancy ever took place. Thus the issue of removing the old speaker and in turn nominating the new one did not arise at all. Hence, the motion filed by the PM was uncalled for.

Be that as it may, such removal was void, ab initio. It follows, therefore, that the appointment of a new speaker was premature. The same argument applies to the issue of the removal and the appointment of the old deputy speaker and the new one respectively.

Even assuming, for the sake of argument that such an exercise was indeed lawful, Harapan should have been given an opportunity to present its own candidates, pursuant to Order 4 (1)of the Standing Orders. The said order requires a 14-day notice to be duly presented to the secretary of the Lower House before a meeting.

Government is bound by the principle of estoppel

Harapan is of the view that both the vacancies of the post of the speaker and the deputy speaker could have only taken effect yesterday, July 13. This is highly logical, due to the fact that the issue of the vacancy of both seats was only finally decided when the Dewan Rakyat duly voted the motion. By implication and by conduct, the offices of the Harapan-appointed speaker and his deputy were never vacant before this.

In law, the government is thus bound by the principle of estoppel. By its own conduct, the government was estopped from removing the Harapan-appointed speaker.

Unfortunately, Harapan has been unlawfully denied from nominating its own candidates for both seats. The government seems to rely on the issue of the 14-day rule in denying Harapan from putting up its proposed candidates.

With due respect, the unlawful reliance of the14-day rule canvassed in Order 4 (1) of the Standing Orders is highly regrettable. With the greatest respect, It smacks of mala fide.

I am of the view that the period of 14 days would only commence on July 13, when the final determination on the issue of the vacancy of the speaker's seat is absolutely concluded.

Be as it may, the government should have adjourned the parliamentary sitting yesterday to another date, so that the issue of the appointment of both the new speaker and the new deputy speaker would have been properly determined. The 14-day rule should only run from yesterday.

Yes, the government did send its notice within 14 days from yesterday's parliamentary sitting. Harapan did not.

But, in my considered view, the government was wrong in sending a pre-matured notice. Its notice was defective simply because the issue of the vacancy of the seats of the old speaker and his deputy was only decided yesterday. The time has not run yet.

Under these circumstances, Harapan is right in not sending the required notice as the 14-day periods had not kicked in yet.

MOHAMED HANIPA MAIDIN is the Member of Parliament for Sepang and a member of the Pakatan Harapan coalition party Amanah. He was, until 2015, a member of PAS.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

COMMENT | Speaker's job too big for Art Harun?

PKR Women hits out at Baling MP over 'dark, powder' remark

Azhar once chided Pandikar for turning blind eye to sexist remarks

Ariff: PN makes 'history' with speaker's removal