I am angry at how we have changed Speakers, but no words are coming out of my mouth. I look to the law, and the law is not with me.
The new Speaker of Dewan Rakyat, Azhar Harun, said that his “election” was perfectly legal. When people referred to the Standing Order (rules of Parliament), Clause 4(1), that requires a 14-day notice to allow other candidates to compete for the position, Azhar said there is no need.
His interpretation was that the 14-day notice need only be given to the sitting Speaker before the Parliament sitting. In the event there is no competing candidate, as this was the case, then the only candidate will be automatically elected.
The new Deputy Speaker, Azalina Othman, went a step further. A trained lawyer herself, she said that the simple fact that the motion for removal of the Speaker made it to the Dewan Rakyat implies that the insertion of Azhar’s name as Speaker was legal and proper.
This was precisely what happened, and they are probably right. But still, there is something amiss about this.
Legal but unethical
When Muhyiddin’s Perikatan Nasional government came into power in March 2020, they said the same thing. The proclamation was that the government was legal by the law, and they had not violated anything that could be said to be unlawful or unconstitutional. They did not have to compromise any of the key actors of the government to make it happen. They have done something that was not done before – to throw out the government the people voted without going through an election process.
The message we keep hearing is that this is legal.
However, just because something is legal does not mean that it is ethical. Society functions not only by what the law says but also what societal norms consider acceptable. The law could only do so much to impose order, but it is still up to the key actors to play their part to make the system work.
Our legal system allows for government and prime ministers to be changed because the only requirement is for the prime minister to have the “confidence of the majority”. What the law does not specify is where the majority could come from.
No one would have expected that a parliamentarian could discard an entire government of 90 plus members, and buy and replace them with the members from the other side of the aisle. The people who designed the system did not expect so many people in the Parliament to be tempted by money, power, and positions. They expected a certain level of humility, integrity, and dignity from the leaders who are supposed to represent the people.
A “backdoor government” is something highly unusual in countries with a similar system as ours. We have defied expectations and what the laws could anticipate with our behaviours devoid of integrity.
Likewise, the Standing Order of Parliament does not specify that a government could remove and install a new Speaker who is favourable to him to prevent a no-confidence motion being tabled. It is understood that, in the past, the Speaker has always been someone amenable to the government’s wishes. This is tactical because the government would not want to see their motions being defeated or being humiliated by the other side.
The Standing Order also does not specify the need for more than one names before the sole candidate could be elected as Speaker of the House.
In other words, there is no “backdoor Speaker” as claimed as well.
More than legality
But that is the law. What about norms or values that bind our society together?
It is not ethical to remove Speakers without reason. It is not ethical to install a Speaker that is not seen fair and impartial to everyone of the House. It is not ethical to compromise the independence of the House time and time again.
Of course, Azhar Harun will try to be a shrewd Speaker and win back the hearts of people. He will make a few decisions that appear to be impartial to everyone in the House. He had already said that he would not make “controversial” decisions. That is part of the package.
Muhyiddin put him there precisely to create the façade of independence when it was clearly to prevent a no-confidence motion from seeing the light of the day. That is why no matter what Azhar Harun tries to do, he will never win back the integrity and independence of the role of the Speaker.
The ousted Speaker, Tan Sri Ariff, said that this was not done anywhere in this world for over 800 years. Azhar Harun will need to live with that burden of history.
Image sources:
