by Andrew Khoo, Co–Chair, Human Rights Committee, Malaysian Bar Council
11 September 2009 marks the 50th birthday of the first ever sitting of the Malayan Parliament. Fresh from the 1st General Election held on 19 August 1959, 104 members of the first Malayan Parliament took their seats at the Dewan Tunku Abdul Rahman, which served as our nation’s first seat of Parliament until the current building was opened in 1963. Approximately a third of the first batch of MPs were in the Opposition. They represented about 46% of the votes cast in that 1st General Election.
In comparison, on 28 April 2008 when the first sitting of the 12th Parliament took place, 222 members of Parliament were sworn in. Parliament is currently in recess and will re–convene in October 2009 for the Budget sitting. 82 out of the 222 MPs are in the Opposition, just over a third. The Opposition garnered approximately 48% of the number of votes cast in the 12th General Election.
11 September 2009 marks the 50th birthday of the first ever sitting of the Malayan Parliament. Fresh from the 1st General Election held on 19 August 1959, 104 members of the first Malayan Parliament took their seats at the Dewan Tunku Abdul Rahman, which served as our nation’s first seat of Parliament until the current building was opened in 1963. Approximately a third of the first batch of MPs were in the Opposition. They represented about 46% of the votes cast in that 1st General Election.
In comparison, on 28 April 2008 when the first sitting of the 12th Parliament took place, 222 members of Parliament were sworn in. Parliament is currently in recess and will re–convene in October 2009 for the Budget sitting. 82 out of the 222 MPs are in the Opposition, just over a third. The Opposition garnered approximately 48% of the number of votes cast in the 12th General Election.
What, if anything, has changed? To a certain extent, apart from the number of members of Parliament and the exclusive use of Bahasa Malaysia, not much, it would appear. Looking at the Hansard (the name given to the record of proceedings in Parliament), no sooner than the 1st meeting of the 1st session of the 1st Parliament commenced that verbal exchanges began between the Government and the Opposition. The first order of business was the election of the Speaker. Tunku Abdul Rahman, our first Prime Minister, stood to congratulate the newly elected Speaker, Dato’ Haji Mohamed Noah bin Omar, on behalf of the members of the Dewan Rakyat. Immediately up rose Dato’ Onn bin Jaafar, the sole representative of Parti Negara, in the Opposition, who chided Tunku; Tunku had no right to congratulate the Speaker on behalf of the entire Dewan but only on behalf of the Government side. Tunku had not sought the consent of the Opposition benches to speak on their behalf. Shades of Anwar v. Najib?
The 1st session which adjourned at the close of business on 14 December 1959 saw a walkout by the Opposition Peoples’ Progressive Party of Malaya. At the conclusion of the Government’s business in the morning of 14 December 1959, the then Deputy Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak rose to propose a motion to adjourn the Dewan Rakyat sine die (until a date to be determined) when the Dewan Rakyat rose that day. This was seconded by the then Minister of External Affairs Dato’ (later Tun) Dr. Ismail. The Speaker immediately put it to a vote. Mr. Lim Kean Siew of the opposition Labour Party/Socialist Front challenged the Speaker for putting it to a vote without inviting members to speak on the motion; he was opposing the motion.
Mr. Speaker: I have already put the question to the House. You have no more right to speak.
Mr. Lim Kean Siew: Sir, I do not think that you looked to this side. You did not give us a chance to speak.
Mr. Speaker: I did, but nobody said anything at all.
Mr. Lim Kean Siew: Sir, subject to your ruling, under our rules for debates, when a motion has been seconded, then you, Sir, are to repeat the question and throw the motion open to debate. In view of the fact that the ballot is not yet complete, could I have your permission to speak on this matter?
Mr. Speaker: I would let you speak this time, only this time.
Doesn’t it just remind you of, say, Lim Kit Siang crossing swords with the current Speaker? Lim Kean Siew then went on to ask that the Speaker not adjourn the Dewan Rakyat sine die as there were 9 private members’ motions listed on the order paper for the day to be debated, and only 5 more hours of Parliamentary time left. He highlighted the nature and importance of each of the motions. He continued:
“Cannot the Government show more tolerance and allow us this freedom of speech by withdrawing this motion? The right to speak fully is necessary for the success of the Parliamentary system and, Sir, if the Government decides to hold against this plea by sheer weight of numbers then these motions will have to be steam–rolled through and full debate sacrificed.”
D. R. Seenivasagam of the Peoples’ Progressive Party then stood up also to oppose the motion. He said:
“In a matter like this it is essential that this House should appreciate that all Members come here to voice their opinion and to voice it thoroughly and in as much time as may be necessary to do that. Parliament should not limit itself except in very very special circumstances. Parliament should sit for as long as it is necessary to deal with the affairs of the country.”
And this a reminder of, perhaps, Karpal Singh? Also rising to oppose the motion was Dr. Burhanuddin bin Mohd. Noor of PAS, Mr. Chin See Yin (an independent) and Dato’ Onn bin Jaafar. Dato’ Onn said:–
“Pada pendapat saya sendiri ada pun kewajipan Dewan ini ia–lah untok bekerja dan bukan–lah berma'ana bekerja untok sa–hari, melainkan bekerja terpaksa bekerja dua bulan atau tiga bulan sekali pun. Ini pada pendapat saya. Memandang beberapa hari yang telah sudah, Kerajaan telah menjalankan kerja–nya dengan jelas, maka tinggal–lah sekarang kerja2 yang kebanyakkan–nya ada–lah di–bawa oleh pehak pembangkang, oleh itu sa–kira–nya hendak di–untokkan dalam sa–hari untok di–bahathkan tujoh chadangan yang ada di–hadapan Dewan ini pada hari ini, maka masa yang sa–bagitu sudah tentu tidak menchukopi. Dari itu, saya sokong dengan kuat–nya permintaan dari pehak pembangkang supaya di–lanjutkan masa–nya, kalau tak boleh hari ini, esok dan di–simpan kalau tak habis di–sambong pada lusa–nya, itu pun boleh juga.”
Tun Razak was having none of that:
As I have said, it is difficult for us to extend the time because we have given one day for private motions. I think in any Parliament in the world, it is the practice that Government's business must come first and a limited time can only be given to private business. It is for the Opposition in the future to arrange their business in such a way that they get through their urgent business first. Of course we cannot, as I have said, accept every motion and allow every motion by the Opposition to be debated : supposing the Opposition were to submit 50 or 100 motions on the Order Paper, it does not follow that we go on meeting for another month.”
I think today, R. Sivarasa would be happy just to even get that one day for private motions. These days, the Government refuses even to allow any time for private members’ motions.
Let Dato’ Onn have the last word:
“On a point of clarification, Sir. Pehak Kerajaan telah pun menjelaskan segala kerja2–nya
dengan sempurna sa–hingga termasok juga pekerjaan yang baharu ia–itu lantekan Yang Berhormat Timbalan Yang di–Pertua. Sekarang masa–nya telah sampai, patut–lah di–beri peluang kapada pehak pembangkang terutama sekali dari chadangan2 yang ada dihadapan Majlis ini. Oleh kerana tiap2 sa–orang Ahli Yang Berhormat itu menerima sa–banyak $500 sa–bulan, bukan di–suroh–nya dudok diam2 sahaja melainkan di–suroh bekerja membuat sa–bahagian daripada pekerjaan di–Majlis ini yang di–katakan di–Parlimen ini ia–lah untok berchakap (Ke'tawa). Perkataan "Parliament" ma'ana–nya tempat berchakap daripada perkataan French "Parler" berchakap.”
Well, maybe another thing has changed after 50 years – MP’s salaries! In any event the question was put to the Dewan, and agreed to: “Resolved, That at its rising this day the House do stand adjourned sine die.” At which point D. R. Seenivasagam stood up and said:
“Mr. Speaker, Sir, may I have your indulgence for one moment? With your permission,
may I, together with fellow Members of the Peoples' Progressive Party of Malaya, leave this Chamber as a sign of protest?”
And out they went.
One of the 9 motions referred to was initially raised by (then) En. Mohamed Asri bin Haji Muda of PAS, "That the House resolves that the Social and Welfare Lotteries shall be discontinued." Dr. Burhanuddin bin Mohd. Noor spoke about the fact that Islam being the official religion of the country meant that it clearly was a religious problem that lotteries were being permitted.
“[K]ami ini ada–lah wakil yang di–lantek oleh ra'ayat yang mewakili party atau fahaman2 yang hendak diperjuangkan oleh ra'ayat negeri ini. Maka memandang kapada itu bahawa tanggong–jawab kami terhadap kapada ra'ayat negeri ini maka tanggong–jawab ini kalau–lah kita ambil kesimpulan pendek–nya chara mudah tersimpul kapada tiga pokok. Pokok yang pertama, sa–bagaimana yang telah saya katakan tadi ia–itu Perlembagaan kita telah mengaku bahawa Ugama Islam ia–lah Ugama Resmi. Kedua, bahawa Perlembagaan kita telah mengaku hak peri kemanusiaan negeri ini, dan Ketiga, Perlembagaan negeri kita telah memberikan pengakuan sa–penoh2 kebajikan, kema'amoran dan keamanan kapada ra'ayat dan negeri ini. Memandang kapada dasar ini, Tuan Yang di–Pertua, beberapa tanggongjawab bahawa masa'alah lotery ini ada–lah satu perkara yang berhubong dengan tanggong–jawab penganjor2 kemana–kah arah–nya ra'ayat negeri ini hendak di–pimpin? Tuan Yang di–Pertua, saya telah menerangkan tadi bahawa pokok pimpinan kita di–tanah ayer kita ini chara ringkas–nya pada pokok–nya ada tiga. Yang pertama, sa–bagai melahirkan benar2 supaya Ugama Resmi negeri ini bukan–lah timbul di–atas kata2 yang akan di–katakan pada mulut2 sahaja dengan tidak memberi kehormatan yang berkenaan dan dalam erti–kata yang penoh dalam pengakuan Islam sa–bagai Ugama Resmi negeri ini.“
Dr. Burhanuddin’s speech has been extensively quoted because, as can be seen, our country today continues to debate the true effect and consequences of Islam being the official religion. Note also the appeal for the need to respect Islam as the official religion of the country. The debate went on. Some later speakers even raised the issue of liquor licences and pig licences. Others suggested that this issue should not be debated in the Dewan but that it should be dealt with by Their Royal Highnesses the Malay Rulers. The parallel with what is happening in our nation nearly 50 years after these words were spoken are clear.
Dato’ Dr. Ismail responded on behalf of the government. What he said should serve as a telling reminder to all Malaysians today:
“[I]tu menunjokkan perbezaan di–antara Parti Alliance dengan parti [PAS]. Dalam soal perbezaan ini telah–lah di–bentangkan dalam Pilehan Raya yang telah lalu, baik Pilehan Raya negeri2 dan kapada Parlimen. Jadi supaya hendak menarek perhatian kita, di–ingatkan sa–mula apa yang telah berlaku dalam Pilehan Raya. Sa–bagai Parti Perikatan kita berkata ia–itu jika kita di–angkat menjadi Kerajaan, kita sanggup menjadikan ugama Islam ugama rasmi dan pentadbiran bukan–lah mengikut chara Islam. Dan bagi PAS pula kalau menjadi Kerajaan, dia bukan sahaja menjadikan ugama Islam ugama rasmi bahkan akan menjalankan pentadbiran dengan chara Islam. Parti Perikatan telah menang, jadi mengikut demokrasi pentadbiran negeri ini berjalan–lah dengan tidak sa–chara Islam, tetapi Islam menjadi ugama rasmi negeri ini. Bagi U.M.N.O. ia–lah satu daripada parti dalam Perikatan, kita ketahui di–bawah penjajahan dahulu, ugama Islam bukan hanya tidak kembang bahkan ugama Islam negeri ini terbenam. Jadi bagi kita yang pertama hendak menghidupkan, meninggikan mutu ugama Islam dalam negeri ini dan kita juga mengikut keadaan dalam negeri ini; kita pandang ia–itu tidak sesuai kita hendak menjadikan pentadbiran dalam negeri ini dengan chara Islam, kita telah terangkan kapada ra'ayat dan juga Parti PAS menerangkan kapada ra'ayat tetapi ra'ayat mengangkat Perikatan. Di–sini saya suka mengingatkan juga kapada Ahli Yang Berhormat dari Tanah Merah ia–itu ia dudok dalam Parlimen ini ada–lah mengikut pentadbiran Persekutuan Tanah Melayu yang tidak mengikut chara Islam, mengikut chara demokrasi, ma'ana–nya, satu keputusan yang di–ambil dalam Parlimen ini, jika di–luluskan mengikut dalam bahasa Inggeris majority, jadi ma'ana–nya bila telah jadi undang2; baik pembangkang atau pun tidak tundok–lah kapada undang2 itu.“
A lesson from history indeed. Happy belated Merdeka, Malaysia. And Happy 50th Birthday, the Malaysian Parliament.
Andrew Khoo
Co–Chair
Human Rights Committee
Malaysian Bar Council
The 1st session which adjourned at the close of business on 14 December 1959 saw a walkout by the Opposition Peoples’ Progressive Party of Malaya. At the conclusion of the Government’s business in the morning of 14 December 1959, the then Deputy Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak rose to propose a motion to adjourn the Dewan Rakyat sine die (until a date to be determined) when the Dewan Rakyat rose that day. This was seconded by the then Minister of External Affairs Dato’ (later Tun) Dr. Ismail. The Speaker immediately put it to a vote. Mr. Lim Kean Siew of the opposition Labour Party/Socialist Front challenged the Speaker for putting it to a vote without inviting members to speak on the motion; he was opposing the motion.
Mr. Speaker: I have already put the question to the House. You have no more right to speak.
Mr. Lim Kean Siew: Sir, I do not think that you looked to this side. You did not give us a chance to speak.
Mr. Speaker: I did, but nobody said anything at all.
Mr. Lim Kean Siew: Sir, subject to your ruling, under our rules for debates, when a motion has been seconded, then you, Sir, are to repeat the question and throw the motion open to debate. In view of the fact that the ballot is not yet complete, could I have your permission to speak on this matter?
Mr. Speaker: I would let you speak this time, only this time.
Doesn’t it just remind you of, say, Lim Kit Siang crossing swords with the current Speaker? Lim Kean Siew then went on to ask that the Speaker not adjourn the Dewan Rakyat sine die as there were 9 private members’ motions listed on the order paper for the day to be debated, and only 5 more hours of Parliamentary time left. He highlighted the nature and importance of each of the motions. He continued:
“Cannot the Government show more tolerance and allow us this freedom of speech by withdrawing this motion? The right to speak fully is necessary for the success of the Parliamentary system and, Sir, if the Government decides to hold against this plea by sheer weight of numbers then these motions will have to be steam–rolled through and full debate sacrificed.”
D. R. Seenivasagam of the Peoples’ Progressive Party then stood up also to oppose the motion. He said:
“In a matter like this it is essential that this House should appreciate that all Members come here to voice their opinion and to voice it thoroughly and in as much time as may be necessary to do that. Parliament should not limit itself except in very very special circumstances. Parliament should sit for as long as it is necessary to deal with the affairs of the country.”
And this a reminder of, perhaps, Karpal Singh? Also rising to oppose the motion was Dr. Burhanuddin bin Mohd. Noor of PAS, Mr. Chin See Yin (an independent) and Dato’ Onn bin Jaafar. Dato’ Onn said:–
“Pada pendapat saya sendiri ada pun kewajipan Dewan ini ia–lah untok bekerja dan bukan–lah berma'ana bekerja untok sa–hari, melainkan bekerja terpaksa bekerja dua bulan atau tiga bulan sekali pun. Ini pada pendapat saya. Memandang beberapa hari yang telah sudah, Kerajaan telah menjalankan kerja–nya dengan jelas, maka tinggal–lah sekarang kerja2 yang kebanyakkan–nya ada–lah di–bawa oleh pehak pembangkang, oleh itu sa–kira–nya hendak di–untokkan dalam sa–hari untok di–bahathkan tujoh chadangan yang ada di–hadapan Dewan ini pada hari ini, maka masa yang sa–bagitu sudah tentu tidak menchukopi. Dari itu, saya sokong dengan kuat–nya permintaan dari pehak pembangkang supaya di–lanjutkan masa–nya, kalau tak boleh hari ini, esok dan di–simpan kalau tak habis di–sambong pada lusa–nya, itu pun boleh juga.”
Tun Razak was having none of that:
As I have said, it is difficult for us to extend the time because we have given one day for private motions. I think in any Parliament in the world, it is the practice that Government's business must come first and a limited time can only be given to private business. It is for the Opposition in the future to arrange their business in such a way that they get through their urgent business first. Of course we cannot, as I have said, accept every motion and allow every motion by the Opposition to be debated : supposing the Opposition were to submit 50 or 100 motions on the Order Paper, it does not follow that we go on meeting for another month.”
I think today, R. Sivarasa would be happy just to even get that one day for private motions. These days, the Government refuses even to allow any time for private members’ motions.
Let Dato’ Onn have the last word:
“On a point of clarification, Sir. Pehak Kerajaan telah pun menjelaskan segala kerja2–nya
dengan sempurna sa–hingga termasok juga pekerjaan yang baharu ia–itu lantekan Yang Berhormat Timbalan Yang di–Pertua. Sekarang masa–nya telah sampai, patut–lah di–beri peluang kapada pehak pembangkang terutama sekali dari chadangan2 yang ada dihadapan Majlis ini. Oleh kerana tiap2 sa–orang Ahli Yang Berhormat itu menerima sa–banyak $500 sa–bulan, bukan di–suroh–nya dudok diam2 sahaja melainkan di–suroh bekerja membuat sa–bahagian daripada pekerjaan di–Majlis ini yang di–katakan di–Parlimen ini ia–lah untok berchakap (Ke'tawa). Perkataan "Parliament" ma'ana–nya tempat berchakap daripada perkataan French "Parler" berchakap.”
Well, maybe another thing has changed after 50 years – MP’s salaries! In any event the question was put to the Dewan, and agreed to: “Resolved, That at its rising this day the House do stand adjourned sine die.” At which point D. R. Seenivasagam stood up and said:
“Mr. Speaker, Sir, may I have your indulgence for one moment? With your permission,
may I, together with fellow Members of the Peoples' Progressive Party of Malaya, leave this Chamber as a sign of protest?”
And out they went.
One of the 9 motions referred to was initially raised by (then) En. Mohamed Asri bin Haji Muda of PAS, "That the House resolves that the Social and Welfare Lotteries shall be discontinued." Dr. Burhanuddin bin Mohd. Noor spoke about the fact that Islam being the official religion of the country meant that it clearly was a religious problem that lotteries were being permitted.
“[K]ami ini ada–lah wakil yang di–lantek oleh ra'ayat yang mewakili party atau fahaman2 yang hendak diperjuangkan oleh ra'ayat negeri ini. Maka memandang kapada itu bahawa tanggong–jawab kami terhadap kapada ra'ayat negeri ini maka tanggong–jawab ini kalau–lah kita ambil kesimpulan pendek–nya chara mudah tersimpul kapada tiga pokok. Pokok yang pertama, sa–bagaimana yang telah saya katakan tadi ia–itu Perlembagaan kita telah mengaku bahawa Ugama Islam ia–lah Ugama Resmi. Kedua, bahawa Perlembagaan kita telah mengaku hak peri kemanusiaan negeri ini, dan Ketiga, Perlembagaan negeri kita telah memberikan pengakuan sa–penoh2 kebajikan, kema'amoran dan keamanan kapada ra'ayat dan negeri ini. Memandang kapada dasar ini, Tuan Yang di–Pertua, beberapa tanggongjawab bahawa masa'alah lotery ini ada–lah satu perkara yang berhubong dengan tanggong–jawab penganjor2 kemana–kah arah–nya ra'ayat negeri ini hendak di–pimpin? Tuan Yang di–Pertua, saya telah menerangkan tadi bahawa pokok pimpinan kita di–tanah ayer kita ini chara ringkas–nya pada pokok–nya ada tiga. Yang pertama, sa–bagai melahirkan benar2 supaya Ugama Resmi negeri ini bukan–lah timbul di–atas kata2 yang akan di–katakan pada mulut2 sahaja dengan tidak memberi kehormatan yang berkenaan dan dalam erti–kata yang penoh dalam pengakuan Islam sa–bagai Ugama Resmi negeri ini.“
Dr. Burhanuddin’s speech has been extensively quoted because, as can be seen, our country today continues to debate the true effect and consequences of Islam being the official religion. Note also the appeal for the need to respect Islam as the official religion of the country. The debate went on. Some later speakers even raised the issue of liquor licences and pig licences. Others suggested that this issue should not be debated in the Dewan but that it should be dealt with by Their Royal Highnesses the Malay Rulers. The parallel with what is happening in our nation nearly 50 years after these words were spoken are clear.
Dato’ Dr. Ismail responded on behalf of the government. What he said should serve as a telling reminder to all Malaysians today:
“[I]tu menunjokkan perbezaan di–antara Parti Alliance dengan parti [PAS]. Dalam soal perbezaan ini telah–lah di–bentangkan dalam Pilehan Raya yang telah lalu, baik Pilehan Raya negeri2 dan kapada Parlimen. Jadi supaya hendak menarek perhatian kita, di–ingatkan sa–mula apa yang telah berlaku dalam Pilehan Raya. Sa–bagai Parti Perikatan kita berkata ia–itu jika kita di–angkat menjadi Kerajaan, kita sanggup menjadikan ugama Islam ugama rasmi dan pentadbiran bukan–lah mengikut chara Islam. Dan bagi PAS pula kalau menjadi Kerajaan, dia bukan sahaja menjadikan ugama Islam ugama rasmi bahkan akan menjalankan pentadbiran dengan chara Islam. Parti Perikatan telah menang, jadi mengikut demokrasi pentadbiran negeri ini berjalan–lah dengan tidak sa–chara Islam, tetapi Islam menjadi ugama rasmi negeri ini. Bagi U.M.N.O. ia–lah satu daripada parti dalam Perikatan, kita ketahui di–bawah penjajahan dahulu, ugama Islam bukan hanya tidak kembang bahkan ugama Islam negeri ini terbenam. Jadi bagi kita yang pertama hendak menghidupkan, meninggikan mutu ugama Islam dalam negeri ini dan kita juga mengikut keadaan dalam negeri ini; kita pandang ia–itu tidak sesuai kita hendak menjadikan pentadbiran dalam negeri ini dengan chara Islam, kita telah terangkan kapada ra'ayat dan juga Parti PAS menerangkan kapada ra'ayat tetapi ra'ayat mengangkat Perikatan. Di–sini saya suka mengingatkan juga kapada Ahli Yang Berhormat dari Tanah Merah ia–itu ia dudok dalam Parlimen ini ada–lah mengikut pentadbiran Persekutuan Tanah Melayu yang tidak mengikut chara Islam, mengikut chara demokrasi, ma'ana–nya, satu keputusan yang di–ambil dalam Parlimen ini, jika di–luluskan mengikut dalam bahasa Inggeris majority, jadi ma'ana–nya bila telah jadi undang2; baik pembangkang atau pun tidak tundok–lah kapada undang2 itu.“
A lesson from history indeed. Happy belated Merdeka, Malaysia. And Happy 50th Birthday, the Malaysian Parliament.
Andrew Khoo
Co–Chair
Human Rights Committee
Malaysian Bar Council