NGO wants Parliament to reinstate Surendran
(The Rakyat Post) – Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) wants the suspension of Padang Serai Member of Parliament N. Surendran to be revoked to restore public confidence and respect for the Parliament.
LFL executive director Eric Paulsen said today’s suspension was a harsh and overkill reaction which should be done as a last resort as it hurt democracy and deprived a constituency of its representative.
Surendran was suspended for six months for describing Parliament as “authoritarian” with hardly any space being allocated for Opposition motions, debates or bills and that a “giant rubber stamp” should be built to symbolise this.
The Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) vice-president had just returned from his “exile” on Monday, after being axed on Nov 14 last year for trying to push through an emergency motion over the demolition of the 101-year-old Sri Muneswarar Kaliyaman Hindu temple in the city centre.
“It also sends a dangerous and chilling message to the Opposition that they voice their dissent at the risk of serious repercussions as Barisan Nasional can and will abuse their majority votes on a whim,” he said in a statement.
Paulsen said the Speaker showed bad faith or premeditation when he bulldozed through the suspension motion, that was riddled with serious errors, without a debate and despite Opposition parliamentarians’ strenuous objections.
“Firstly, under Rule 27(3) of the Standing Orders of the Dewan Rakyat, the Deputy Speaker must be satisfied upon representation to him by a Minister that public interest requires a motion to be debated as soon as possible. In such an event, one day’s notice shall be sufficient.
“In this matter, the motion was presented to the House at 2pm on June 18 and tabled the next day at 11.30am, in less than 24 hours.
“Secondly, the Deputy Speaker did not define how the motion was a matter of ‘public interest’ for the benefit of Surendran or the other parliamentarians.”
Paulsen added that the motion was approved to be tabled by the Speaker when the Speaker’s position was itself the subject of the motion.
He added that Surendran should have been brought before the Committee of Privileges under Rule 80 rather than summarily decided by a voice vote.
