by Parliamentary Opposition Leader, DAP Secretary-General and MP for Kota Melaka, Lim Kit Siang, in Petaling Jaya on Thursday, Nov. 21, 1985:
DAP sends condolence messages to Acting IGP for the four policeman killed in the Bailing incident
On behalf of the DAP, I have today send condolence messages to the Acting Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Mohamed Amin Osman, for the four policeman killed in the Baling tragedy on Monday, and asking him to extend the DAP’s condolences also to the families of the bereaved families.
My message to Tan Sri Mohamed Amin reads:
“Tan Sri Mohamed Amin Osman,
Acting Inspector-General of Police,
Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur.
The DAP extends its condolence to the bereaved families of the four police personnel killed in the Baling Incident on Monday while in the course of duty. Please extend our condolence to the bereaved families concerned.
Lim Kit Siang
Parliamentary Opposition Leader &
DAP calls for the establishment of an all-party advisory committee to help the Ministry of Home Affairs maintain social harmony and public order
The Baling tragedy must have raised many disturbing questions in the minds of thinking Malaysians. Based on the facts given by the Acting Prime Minister, Datuk Musa Hitam, in his Ministerial statement, in Parliament yesterday, the following questions beg answer:
Firstly, from Datuk Musa’s account, there had been a state of tension and confrontation between the police and Ibrahim Libya and his followers for a few months, leading to the Oct. 20 incident which resulted in the OCP of Baling and 15 other policemen being held hostages. While not in any manner approving the defiance of law and order, and in particular the possession of dangerous weapons, the people are entitled to the legitimate question of asking what is the background and the cause of the origins of the relationship of tension and confrontation, which could not have built up in a short period.
Datuk Musa has disclosed that 159 people – 118 men, 29 women and 12 children (above 11 years) – had been arrested and would be charged for the five offences of carrying offensive weapons in public places, rioting with offensive weapons, harbouring criminals, wrongfully restraining police officers from carrying out their duties and criminal intimidation. To ensure that the Baling Incident and Tragedy would no repeat elsewhere, Malaysians want to know how men, even women and children, could be worked up to take on the police (and in 18 cases, paid with their lives). Unless, these background and circumstances are understood, the Baling Tragedy lessons would not have been learnt.
By Parliamentary Opposition Leader, DAP Secretary-General and MP for Kota Melaka, Lim Kit Siang, in Parliament on Friday, 22.11.1985:
Lim Kit Siang to seek meeting with Datuk Musa Hitam to fix early date for the substantive motions challenging the decision of Deputy Speaker, Dr. Abdul Hamid Pawanteh
I have submitted to the Speaker, Tan Sri Zahir Ismail, today my substantive motion under Standing Order 43 challenging the decision of the Deputy Speaker, Dr. Abdul Hamid Pawanteh, rejecting my privilege motion on Tuesday censuring the MP for Pasir Puteh, Wan Najib Wan Mohamed, for making a racist speech violating Standing Order 36(10)(c).
This is in fact my second substantive motion challenging Dr. Abdul Hamid Pawanteh’s decision in the Chair. The first substantive motion was submitted a month ago to question the validity of the Deputy Speaker adjourning two sittings of Dewan Rakyat when the Minister for Land and Regional Development, Datuk Seri Adib Adam, had moved a motion for such an adjournment under a Standing Order which did not provide for such powers.
If I am not mistaken, this is first time in the history of Malaysian Parliament that a substantive motion is being moved to challenge the decision of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker, and in this case, two such substantive motions are being moved in one same parliamentary meeting.
I will seek and appointment with the Acting Prime Minister, Datuk Musa Hitam, to ask for time to be allocated next week for the debate on my substantive motion challenging the Deputy Speaker’s decision under Standing Order 43.
Standing Order 43 reads: “The Yang di Pertua in the House or the Chairman in Committee shall be responsible for the observance of the rules of order in the House and Committee respectively, and his decision on any point of order shall not be open to appeal and shall not be reviewed by the House except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose. Such a motion shall not require more than two days’ notice.”
It is clear that a substantive motion under S.O.43 challenging the decision of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker should be debated after two days’ notice. I saw the Yang di Pertua, Tan Sri Zahir Ismail, last month after I had submitted my first substantive motion to inquire whether the substantive motion would be debated after two days’ notice. However, Tan Sri Zahir Ismail was of the view that the substantive motion had to wait its turn, that it could not get priority, and that government business must take precedence.
I believe that such an interpretation would in effect make S.O43 completely meaningless, as to make the decision of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker unchallengeable, unreviewable or unappeable at all. This is because the government can refuse to accord time to the substantive motion under S.O.43 to be debated, if the Speaker is right that government business must take precedence.
I do not think that this is the correct interpretation of S.O.43 and contend a substantive motion should be automatically put before the House for debate after the two days’ notice had been given under S.O.43.
In any event, I will be seeking a meeting with Datuk Musa, especially as Dr. Hamid Pawanteh’s rejection of my privilege motion last Tuesday involved a fundamental question as to whether Parliamentary proceedings should be conducted fairly, justly and in accordance with the rules of natural justice.
From Dr. Hamid Pawanteh’s press comments, it is clear that he has no notion of the rules of natural justice, for otherwise, he would not refer disparagingly to how ‘he could not be governed by individual notions of natural justice.’ For Dr. Hamid’s information, there are no individual notions but established principles of rules of natural justice!