JULY 20 — According to Erskine May, often referred to as "the Bible of parliamentary procedure”, the disciplinary power of suspension had 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) or for disregarding the authority of the Chair or for persistently or wilfully obstructing the business of the House by abusing the rules of the House, or otherwise (Standing Order No 44), a motion may be made "That Mr/Ms... [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 (if present) or by another Minister.

Suspensions may also be carried out by specific order of the House. Such suspensions most frequently follow reports by select committees, most notably the Committee on Standards, which was appointed on December 13, 2012, by the House of Commons following its separation from the former Committee on Standards and Privileges to consider any matter relating to the conduct of MPs in respect of allegations made against them.

The following suspensions have been recorded by Erskine May:

(a) in respect of the terms of a letter addressed by an MP to the Speaker and of his conduct in the House on preceding days;

(b) for publishing a letter reflecting on the Speaker’s conduct in the Chair; and

(c) for damaging the Mace (after the rising of the House) and conduct towards the Chair on a preceding day.

The above shows that suspension of an MP does not necessarily follow a report of the Committee of Standards — Committee of Privileges in the Dewan Rakyat — following a referral of an MP to the Committee by the House.

That’s what happened 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 Fayshal referred to the poison pen letter when 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, at page 37)

It is mind boggling that an MP should refer 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 Fayshal’s case, one can say that if an MP refers to a poison pen letter, he stands poisoned by the letter of the Standing Orders.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.