The writer referred to Article 63 and 72 of the Federal Constitution.
To better understand the context of the situation, I would like to share those aforementioned articles taken from THIS LINK.
I believe it is pertinent to study those two articles carefully before anyone arrives at any conclusion.
Article 63
Privileges of Parliament
63. (1) the validity of any proceedings in either house of
parliament or any committee thereof shall not be questioned in
any court.
(2) no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court
in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking
part in any proceedings of either house of parliament or any
committee thereof.
(3) no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court
in respect of anything published by or under the authority of
either house of parliament.
(4) Clause (2) shall not apply to any person charged with an
offence under the law passed by parliament under Clause (4) of
Article 10 or with an offence under the Sedition Act 1948 [Act
15] as amended by the emergency (essential powers) ordinance
no. 45, 1970 [P.U. (A) 282/1970].
(5) notwithstanding Clause (4), no person shall be liable to
any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said by him
of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or a Ruler when taking part in
any proceedings of either house of parliament or any committee
thereof except where he advocates the abolition of the constitutional
position of the yang di-Pertuan Agong as the Supreme head of
the Federation or the constitutional position of the Ruler of a
State, as the case may be.
Article 72
Privileges of Legislative Assembly
72. (1) the validity of any proceedings in the Legislative
Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.
(2) no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court
in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking
part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or
of any committee thereof.
(3) no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court
in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the
Legislative Assembly of any State.
(4) Clause (2) shall not apply to any person charged with an
offence under the law passed by parliament under Clause (4) of
Article 10 or with an offence under the Sedition Act 1948 as
amended by the emergency (essential powers) ordinance no.
45, 1970.
(5) notwithstanding Clause (4), no person shall be liable to
any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said by him
of the Ruler of any State when taking part in any proceedings of
the Legislative Assembly of any State or any committee thereof
except where he advocates the abolition of the Ruler’s position
as the constitutional Ruler of that State.
Source: HERE
While it is true that the above two articles guarantee immunity for statements to a certain extent depending on variables cited in the Federal Constitution, consider the following factors.
DAP waxes lyrical about their CAT policy. In this case, the ruling state government must remember that any elected assemblyman is accountable to his/her constituents in terms of:
* behaviour and speech
* service record to constituency
* upholding mores of society and values respected by all
* maintaining an upright moral life
The immunity factor cannot be used as a shield to protect oneself against any form of irresponsible speech. Each person, especially when in public service, must be responsible and accountable for speech and actions.
We must also consider the remorse of the culprit or the lack of it.
Did any higher authority direct the person to retract those offending words?
Did the culprit apologise?
If he did apologise, why were those words repeated OUTSIDE the state assembly?
Defenders of such acts in must remember that even in the name of unity, elected leaders must observe code of conduct.
Take a look at THIS LINK which showcases the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of Penang.
One must also consider the roles and responsibilities of state assemblyman. This is what the official website says:
Peranan dan Keahlian
Secara umumnya peranan Dewan Undangan Negeri adalah untuk menggubal perundangan dan dasar negeri. Undang-undang yang diluluskan oleh Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) dipanggil Enakmen. Berdasarkan peruntukan dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan, DUN mempunyai kuasa untuk menggubal undang-undang yang disenaraikan dalam Senarai Negeri dan Senarai Bersama. Peranan DUN yang seterusnya adalah memantau institusi pemerintah iaitu jabatan dan agensi kerajaan negeri. Ahli-ahli DUN bertanggungjawab untuk mengkritik atau menegur tindakan institusi kerajaan bagi memastikan jabatan atau agensi negeri tersebut melaksanakan fungsinya berdasarkan dasar yang telah ditetapkan. Seterusnya, DUN juga berperanan sebagai pengantara dalam penyampaian suara rakyat kepada kerajaan.
Di Pulau Pinang, Yang di-Pertua Negeri akan memanggil persidangan dari semasa ke semasa dan dalam masa yang sama merasmikan persidangan tersebut bagi setiap penggal. Tempoh keahlian Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (ADUN) adalah tidak melebihi lima (5) tahun sekiranya DUN tidak dibubarkan dalam jangka masa tersebut. Seorang Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (ADUN) boleh juga menjadi Ahli Dewan Rakyat dan ADUN secara serentak. Sebelum dibenarkan menyertai persidangan DUN, setiap ahli dikehendaki mengangkat sumpah di hadapan Speaker Dewan Undangan Negeri. Ahli tersebut hendaklah bersumpah atau berjanji bahawa mereka akan taat menjalankan tugas-tugas mereka sebagai Ahli DUN sebaik yang mungkin dan taat setia kepada negeri dan Malaysia serta mematuhi, menjaga dan mempertahankan perlembagaan.Punca: SINI
You can read Perlembagaan Negeri Pulau Pinang AT THIS LINK.
Elected leaders must behave with decorum and not misuse their elected positions.
Look beyond the Parliamentary privileges.
What was wrong with the situation? Who could have nipped the problem in the bud as soon as it happened?
Where do we go from here?
No comments:
Post a Comment