By Wong Ho Leng
History was made on 16th May 2012. All 6 Motions moved by DAP were “killed” by the Sarawak State Assembly Speaker within 30 minutes. Democratic values in Sarawak were so sidestepped that no motion from the Opposition would likely see the light of day.
The Speaker coined every reason to reject the Motions. Some of the reasons were ridiculous. For instance, I had intended to move a Motion to reprimand cabinet ministers who shunned accountability and transparency by not answering questions raised by elected State representatives.
Elected representatives of course would come from both the Opposition (15 members) and BN. Any right thinking Malaysian would agree that the Dewan should not condone the lackadaisical attitude or laziness of these Cabinet Ministers.
Yet, the Speaker killed my Motion, saying that all the written answers were sent either by hand or fax to DAP members and a PKR member (Batu Lintang). The Speaker ruled that the issue raised in the Motion is overtaken by events. But, I rose to tell him, elected members are not from the DAP alone. Violet (Pending) had not received any of her answers. That means, technically, that the issue is not academic. In any event, the Speaker did not mention 2 other PKR members.
He did not mention the elected representatives from the BN who had equally begged for written answers to their questions but did not dare to make noise. On this, I said that the Speaker had made a fundamental error. But the Speaker would simply not own up to his error.
There is another Motion, raised by King Wei (Padungan), on improvement to public transport in Kuching. The Speaker ruled that the public transport infrastructure and facilities require astronomical funding and such colossal funding is the constitutional responsibility of the federal authorities, the federal Ministry of Finance. On that ground he dismissed the Motion. How wrong! It means DUN Sarawak cannot look into ways to improve public transportation in Kuching? Hadn’t we debated this issue umpteenth time in the past meetings?
Alan Ling (Piasau) moved a Motion to stop operation of Cahya Mata Sarawak Premix Plant in Lambir because it spilled diesel into Sg. Laku, the water catchment area, thereby contaminating the water supply and affecting the safety of 300,000 residents in Miri and Bekenu. The Speaker rejected the Motion, on the ground that environment is a federal issue. What? Don’t we have a state Minister in charge of the environment?
Tze Fui (Meradong) moved a Motion to impeach the Assistant Minister of Agriculture Mong Dagang who directed the agriculture office in Sri Aman to withdraw all forms of government assistance to Frusis Lebi on the ground that Frusis Lebi had opposed government policies and openly supported the opposition in the 2011 state election. Needless to say, an OKU such as Frusis Lebi should not have been victimized for his exercising of his freedom of association.
Yet, the Speaker ruled that it was reported on 16th March 2012, the member for Padungan had gone to the MACC’s office in Kuching to lodge a report against the said Assistant Minister, and that the matter is within the purview and jurisdiction of the Deputy Public Prosecutor now. How wrong! King Wei (Padungan) is right in the chambers. He immediately cried foul, saying “I didn’t lodge any report!” Since that is the case, clearly the ground to reject the Motion was baseless. Having repeatedly reminded the Speaker that he had got the facts wrong, and he insisted that he had made a ruling and his ruling was not subject to appeal or review, I reminded the Speaker that it is a worst crime for a Speaker to mislead the Dewan. But he would not budge.
I also moved a Motion condemning the Sibu Municipal Council for holding pre-council meetings, excluding the media and members of the public. On 1.3.2012 the SMC Chairman had also directed that any member of the public who wished to attend the Full Council Meeting had to write in officially and attendance is only granted to those approved by them.
I am surprised that the Speaker gunned this Motion down, citing s.21(6) of the Local Authority Ordinance that all meetings of the local authority shall be open to the public and the media “unless the local authority by resolution at the meeting otherwise decides”.
The Speaker, instead of putting the question to the Dewan, is delving into the arena of debate. The ruling is of course wrong. In any event, the proper reading of s.21(6) shows that the Council had no power to exclude anybody from future full council meetings by a direction made on 1st March, 2012.
The Council can only make the decision from meeting to meeting, and even then, no one can be excluded willy nilly. Exclusion can only be against persons who are unruly or undesirable or had turned rowdy in the course of the meeting. That is trite.
I agreed with the Speaker’s ruling on David (Pelawan)’s Motion. Instead of a Motion to amend the Housing Developers (Control & Licensing) Ordinance 1993, or its regulation, a proper procedure is to table a Private Members Bill. Well, David said he learnt something from moving his Motion. I am sure it will benefit him.
Let history record what had transpired in the afternoon when without putting the Motions to debate, which should have been the case, the Speaker actually single handedly delved into the debate arena and killed all the Motions. Of course we protested, and we went to the press. And, we also learnt that the Speaker had also gone to the press to explain why he had taken the stance he did.
