Kiandee Moots No Confidence Motion Provision Under Standing Orders

---

 


PARLIAMENT | Ronald Kiandee (PN-Beluran) has urged the Dewan Rakyat to formally institutionalise provisions for a vote of no confidence in the Standing Orders.
Speaking in the Dewan Rakyat, he noted that, unlike other legislatures - including in New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Australia, and even the Lok Sabha in India - the Dewan Rakyat has no specific procedure to table such a motion.
“If you refer to the Standing Orders, there is no specific provision. A motion can only be tabled under Standing Order 27(d), and even that is subject to the speaker’s discretion,” said Kiandee in his debate of the 13th Malaysia Plan.
Standing Order 15 also prioritises government business, effectively blocking debate unless the government allows it.
ADSKiandee added that a vote of no confidence must be conducted via secret ballot - just as is done for the election of the speaker and deputy speakers.
“We must create and institutionalise a provision for a vote of no confidence in the Standing Orders. Only then can we talk about upholding the dignity of Parliament,” he said.
Last month, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, a day after some 25,000 people gathered in Kuala Lumpur for the “Turun Anwar” rally, dared opposition leader Hamzah Zainudin to go ahead and table a motion of no confidence in the Dewan Rakyat.
His call was made in response to Hamzah who, at the rally, hinted: “Wait. We will do it later. Why would we reveal it (when we want to table)?"
Further, Kiandee today called on a select committee to study the proposal in line with Anwar’s aspiration to strengthen parliament and the country’s legal institutions.
“These are the things that must be examined in detail if we want to elevate the stature of Parliament, the Dewan Negara, and the Dewan Rakyat for the generations to come,” he added.
Anti-hopping law
Kiandee today also questioned an alleged failure to uphold the true intent of the anti-party hopping law, following Dewan Rakyat speaker Johari Abdul’s decision not to declare vacancies for six opposition MPs who pledged support to the government.
Kiandee recalled how the law - via Article 49A of the Federal Constitution – was passed unanimously three years ago, following pressure from then-opposition lawmakers.
Dewan Rakyat speaker Johari Abdul“This law came about due to demands from the other side, who at the time were sitting in the opposition, and it was made a key condition in their memorandum of understanding in support of the then-prime minister (Ismail Sabri Yaakob),” he said.
However, Kiandee criticised Johari’s move not to vacate the seats of six opposition MPs who had declared support for the current administration.
“Our side challenged the decision in court, and yesterday it was ruled that we cannot challenge the speaker’s decision - not based on the facts of the case, but because of Article 63(1) of the Federal Constitution, which protects the speaker’s decisions from judicial review,” he said.
ADSHe then questioned whether Parliament is now content with the outcome and whether it reflects the original purpose of the law.
“Is Parliament celebrating what has happened to the anti-hopping law that we passed, which was meant to prevent MPs from switching sides? Is that what we want?” he asked.
Kiandee said if the interpretation does not reflect the legislature’s intent, then action must be taken to fulfil the original purpose of the law.
“If not, we might as well repeal the law - let people from here jump there, people from there jump here, forward, backwards, however they like,” he said. - Mkini

---