ACCORDING to Erskine May, often referred to as ‘the Bible of parliamentary procedure’, the disciplinary power of suspension has existed “under ancient usage”.

The power to suspend a member of parliament (MP) is now prescribed by the Standing Orders. Under the Standing Orders of the UK House of Commons, when an MP is named by the Speaker for grossly disorderly conduct (Standing Order No 43), for disregarding the authority of the Chair, or for persistently or wilfully obstructing the business of the House by abusing its rules (Standing Order No 44), a motion may be made that the offending MP be suspended from the service of the House.

The question on that motion must be put forthwith (Standing Order No 44). Such a motion is expected to be moved by the Leader of the House or another Minister if the Leader is not present.

Suspensions may also be carried out by a specific order of the House, often following reports by select committees, notably the Committee on Standards, which was appointed on 13 December 2012, by the House of Commons. This committee considers matters related to the conduct of MPs, particularly allegations made against them.

The following suspensions have been recorded by Erskine May:

• In respect of the terms of a letter addressed by an MP to the Speaker and the MP’s conduct in the House on preceding days.

• For publishing a letter reflecting on the Speaker’s conduct in the Chair.

• For damaging the Mace and conduct towards the Chair on a preceding day.

These examples show that the suspension of an MP does not necessarily follow a report from the Committee on Standards. This was the case on Thursday, July 18, when Machang MP Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal was suspended from the Dewan Rakyat for six months.

This followed the passing of a motion by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Azalina Othman against Wan Fayhsal’s act of citing a poison pen letter.

The letter mentioned an alleged mastermind behind Malaysia Airport Holdings Bhd’s (Mahb) privatisation. Wan Fayhsal referred to the poison pen letter while debating the annual report of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) for 2021 and 2022 in Dewan Rakyat earlier this month (see Hansard dated July 1, 2024, page 37).

It is perplexing that an MP should refer to and cite a poison pen letter in a debate in the August House. There has been much criticism of the suspension from both sides of the political divide. It must be said, though, that it is not unprecedented.

People who live by the sword die by the sword. In Wan Fayhsal’s case, one could say that if an MP refers to a poison pen letter, he stands poisoned by the letter of the Standing Orders. – July 20, 2024.

* Hafiz Hassan reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.