Fong Unjustly Suspended


Home Aliran Monthly Statements Human Rights NGOs Links Join Us About Us

Fong Unjustly Suspended

Can criticism of the Speaker demean the dignity of Parliament

By P Ramakrishnan

fong December 11 will be remembered as a day of infamy in our system of parliamentary democracy. For on this day an injustice has been done against democracy.

On this day, a popularly elected member of parliament, Fong Po Kuan, was slammed with a six-month suspension from parliament which is overwhelmingly dominated by the Barisan Nasional MPs.

Fong was not only suspended but was also deprived of her pay and allowances which is deemed by many as double jeopardy, a punishment suggesting vindictiveness on the part of the BN.

It is an action devoid of justice or mercy.

What transpired on that day did not merely involve the freedom of expression of an MP, but it infringed on the right of opinion of an individual.

It raises serious questions as to whether there is room for criticism and disagreement under our system of parliamentry democracy; whether a ruling of the Speaker of parliament is beyond question; whether the Speaker’s ruling is above criticism.

It is difficult to comprehend why a Speaker’s ruling cannot be questioned or condemned when it is warranted. Even a court judgment can be criticised. The PM comes under constant criticism; the Ministers are held accountable.

What is it that sets the Speaker apart from the others?

It is difficult to justify Fong's suspension with pecuniary loss. It is absurd to claim that Fong’s criticism of the Speaker’s ruling had demeaned the dignity of parliament. How this could constitute an insult to parliament is hard to fathom.

There are many instances and occasions when the conduct of MPs and the Executive could be viewed as an insult, showing no respect to parliament:

82 MPs or 42.3% of the elected representatives were absent when this important motion to suspend Fong was debated. Is this showing respect to parliament?

Both the Minister of Defence and his deputy and their staff were absent when questions were fielded concerning their ministry with no one to respond when parliament was in session. Was that an insult to parliamentary democracy?

There were numerous occasions when even 26 out of 193 MPs could not be bothered to be present to provide a quorum to enable a parliamentary session to function. Isn’t that tantamount to obstructing the smooth functioning of a parliamentary democracy? Does that constitute an insult to parliament?

On so many instances the PM has not been around when parliament was in session. Did his conduct show disrespect for parliamentary democracy?

So many MPs have been absenting themselves from parliamentary sessions, yet continue to draw their salary. Does this show respect to parliament?

Ling Liong Sik has had an appalling record of attendance during parliamentary sessions in the past, an issue highlighted by the DAP. Did he forfeit his pay? Did his absenteeism show any disregard for parliament?

Allocating funds for development projects only to BN MPs and denying the same for Opposition MPs - does this reflect respect for parliamentary democracy?

Using lewd language and a four-letter word on a fellow MP inside the august body of parliament - does that constitute an insult to parliamentary proceedings?

These are the issues that ordinary Malaysians find blatant and baffling and regard as insulting to parliamentary democracy. When culprits from the BN go unpunished, but the full wrath of the BN lands heavily on the opposition, the impression created is that this is a case of the tyranny of the majority. A lopsided majority shouldn’t give rise to tyranny.

Parliament doesn’t lose its lustre and dignity just because the Speaker has been criticised. Parliament’s dignity is not dependent on the conduct of the Speaker alone - its dignity is enhanced and preserved when members of parliament live up to the highest standards of democracy and observe its intrinsic principles of justice, freedom and democracy to the fullest.

It’s hard to believe that one MP’s criticism of the Speaker can affect the dignity of parliament. It is a foolish notion which has no justification whatsoever.

Can it be justly and honestly concluded that Fong’s press statement far outweighs in importance the grades-tampering scandal in the Certificate of Legal Practice examination that it had to be attended to with the utmost urgency in the national interest?

While a motion to debate the CLP debacle was rejected, the motion to discuss the suspension of Fong was deemed so urgent that the Speaker - an interested party to the dispute and subject to Fong’s criticism - readily waived the seven-day notice required for a ministerial motion.

Was this matter so pressing that it could not be referred to the Committee of Privileges for a through investigation to be carried out according to natural justice - which could have offered Fong an ample opportunity to vindicate herself? The findings of this committee could later be referred to parliament for a decision. Would justice have been obstructed if this procedure of inquiry had been adopted? Would a delay of a few weeks or months have mattered that much?

What does this voting to suspend Fong signify? It means 83 MPs voted for the motion, 82 MPs stayed away, 28 voted against it

From another point of view, it can be argued that 110 MPs or nearly 57% did not vote for the motion - that constitutes a majority in the BN-controlled parliament.

Could these MPs also be sharing Fong's view regarding the Speaker’s rejection of her motion to debate the CLP issue? This shared view of Fong’s statement is reflected very effectively in their conduct.

Sometimes things are best said when they are left unsaid, so it seems!

Now e-mail us and tell us what you think.