Press Statement
by DAP Secretary General and MP for Kota Melaka, Kerk Kim Hock
at Parliament lobby at 11.30am
on Thursday, October 10, 2002
Speaker must not allow Standing Orders to be used by Ministers to escape the responsibility of justifying government policies
On 17.4.2001, the Speaker Tun Mohamad Zahir suspended me from the Parliament for 3 days for ignoring his orders to sit down when I had protested against the deputy Finance Minister Datuk Chong Kong Choy for not replying at all to points raised by me.
In reply to the account given by Tun Speaker, I had on 20.4.2001 said, among other things,
“ Parliament is a place where the government must account for its actions and justify its policies. In carrying out his duty and responsibility; the Speaker must not just rely on the Standing Orders, or worse, make narrow interpretations of them. He must, when chairing parliamentary meetings, also be guided by democratic principles and parliamentary conventions.
I do not regret for having been suspended for taking a strong stand against disgraceful ministerial behaviour, which I believe even the Prime Minister himself, will not condone. I have been elected by the people to speak up for them and I do not attend parliament meetings just to speak for the record. The government must account for its actions and justify its policies .Disgraceful ministerial behaviour must not be condoned."
MPs cannot carry out their duties effectively and government ministers cannot be held to properly, satisfactorily and responsibly account for government’s policies if Speaker make narrow interpretations of the Standing Orders without giving regard to the principle of parliamentary democracy and accountability.
The Hansard of October 7 clearly showed that the deputy Minister Datuk Zainal Abidin Zin did not finish his reply when the meeting was adjourned at 5.30 pm. In fact, before the Deputy Speaker Datuk Lim Si Cheng stopped him to adjourn the meeting, he was recorded a saying ” ……Polis 257 di bawah seksyen 155 (c) ……”
A look at his last few paragraphs would clearly show that he had yet to finish his reply about what I had said about the federal traffic chief Datuk Ahmad Bahrin.
I was therefore shocked when Zainal stood up to continue his reply the next day, and claimed that he had finished replying to my points when it was so obvious that there were so many points unanswered.
The least the Deputy Speaker Datuk Mohammad Abdullah could do when I kept arguing was to listen to what were the points I had claimed Zainal had not replied instead of saying that Zainal had a right not to reply.
Not only was I deprived of such an opportunity to say what were the points Zainal had not replied, I was later suspended for ignoring the deputy Speaker’s orders when it was so obvious that Zainal had behaved in a most irresponsible manner by abusing the Standing Orders to run away from his responsibility to answer to points raised by me.
It is time that the Speakers review their roles and responsibilities to ensure that opposition MPs can play their effective role and that government ministers do not run away from their duty to account for government policies by seeking refuge under the Standing Orders.
I hope that the motion moved by Tanjung MP Chow Kon Yeowunder Standing Order 43 to review the deputy Speaker's decision will be allowed for debate as thsi is the only way where the cahiring Spekaer's decison can be reviewed.
I have no regrets for being suspended as this is the price MPs have to pay for pursuing justice and truth.
I will continue to pursue this issue until the government satisfactorily clarifies the matter and solve the issue, including providing answers to the following questions which Zainal failed to answer:
why had the deputy Home Minister Datuk Chor Chee Heong claimed in the Parliament on 12.9.2002 that summons had to be cancelled because some notices could not be sent to the offenders when the truth is that such summons had been given to the offenders by hand?
why did Chor claim that the cancellation was only temporary? When did the government ever made temporary cancellation of any policy or summon?
why did the federal traffic chief Datuk Ahamd Bahrin said on 24.9.2002 that the police never cancelled such summons, thereby openly contradicting Chor ?
why did Zainal Abidin Zin say that the Attorney General’s office had on 6.5.2002 in a statement confirmed that the Police’s action in issuing summons under Section 115 of the 1987 Road Transport Act was lawful when the Attorney General’s office never made any specific reference to this matter?
why is the government not prepared to refund the motorists who have paid the summons?
since Chor has said in Parliament on 19.6.2002 that before 2.8.2000, the police had failed to send the millions of POL 170 A traffic offence notices to the motorists by registered mail as required by Section 118 of the 1987 Road Transport Act, why are not these notices declared as invalid, null and void?