10-21-2020, 11:35 AM
Having read the speaker's clarification in the newspapers, it appears that Standing Order 14(1)(h) which refers to "motion on matters of urgent public importance’ is governed by Standing Order 18 wherein such a motion is purportedly only subject to a discussion, and not to a vote.
Does this mean that a motion under Standing Order 18 is not subject to the normal rules of debate, and a vote thereafter in the House?
Standing Order 18(1) states:
18. (1) Any member other than a minister may rise in his place and ask leave to discuss a defined matter of urgent public importance by reading the text of the motion approved by Tuan Yang di-Pertua.
The marginal notes to Standing Order 18 (1) are 'motion for definite matter of urgent public importance". These are the wordings of Standing Order 14(1)(h).
Standing Order 18(2) states:
(2) A member who wishes so to ask leave shall at least twenty four hours not including holidays/ public holidays before the commencement of the sitting hand to Tuan Yang di-Pertua a written notification of three hundred words of the matter which he wishes to discuss and shall at the same time submit to Tuan Yang di-Pertua the motion which he proposes to move together with a written explanation to the effect that the matter is definite, urgent and of public importance; Tuan Yang di-Pertua shall refuse to allow the claim unless he is satisfied that the matter is definite, urgent and of public importance.
Does the word "motion" appearing in Standing Order 14(1)(h) and the words "motion which he proposes to move" appearing in Standing Order 18(2) have a different legal significance in terms of its meaning in relation to other motions which are subject to the normal rules of debate and vote?
I ask this because nowhere in Standing Order 18 does it state that the motion to discuss a matter which is definite, urgent and of public importance is NOT subject to debate. It says leave to discuss.
I also ask this because of Standing Order 38.
- Continue reading -
Does this mean that a motion under Standing Order 18 is not subject to the normal rules of debate, and a vote thereafter in the House?
Standing Order 18(1) states:
18. (1) Any member other than a minister may rise in his place and ask leave to discuss a defined matter of urgent public importance by reading the text of the motion approved by Tuan Yang di-Pertua.
The marginal notes to Standing Order 18 (1) are 'motion for definite matter of urgent public importance". These are the wordings of Standing Order 14(1)(h).
Standing Order 18(2) states:
(2) A member who wishes so to ask leave shall at least twenty four hours not including holidays/ public holidays before the commencement of the sitting hand to Tuan Yang di-Pertua a written notification of three hundred words of the matter which he wishes to discuss and shall at the same time submit to Tuan Yang di-Pertua the motion which he proposes to move together with a written explanation to the effect that the matter is definite, urgent and of public importance; Tuan Yang di-Pertua shall refuse to allow the claim unless he is satisfied that the matter is definite, urgent and of public importance.
Does the word "motion" appearing in Standing Order 14(1)(h) and the words "motion which he proposes to move" appearing in Standing Order 18(2) have a different legal significance in terms of its meaning in relation to other motions which are subject to the normal rules of debate and vote?
I ask this because nowhere in Standing Order 18 does it state that the motion to discuss a matter which is definite, urgent and of public importance is NOT subject to debate. It says leave to discuss.
I also ask this because of Standing Order 38.
- Continue reading -