FEBRUARY 8 — The Dewan Rakyat broke into heated exchanges after Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainuddin used the words “derhaka”, “menderhaka”, “diderhaka” and “penderhakaan” no less than ten times collectively in no more than 20 minutes into his speech in the Dewan Rakyat on Tuesday (February 4). (See Hansard, 04.02.2025 at pages 74-78)
“Derhaka” is a strong word in Malay to describe one’s rebelliousness, treachery and disobedience to the legitimate authority – the King and the state.
“Point of order” was then heard being raised, first by Sungai Petani MP Dr. Mohammed Taufiq bin Johari and later by Ipoh Timor MP Lee Chuan How.
What is a point of order?
A point of order is an appeal to the Speaker or the Chair for clarification or for a ruling on a matter of procedure in the House. An MP who wants clarification or who believes that a breach of the rules of the House has occurred, will stand up and say “Point of Order, Mr Speaker”. The point of order should then be stated and the Chair should give a ruling on the matter.
A point of order can be raised at virtually any time in the proceedings, provided the point of order is raised and concisely argued as soon as the irregularity occurs.
As a point of order concerns the interpretation of the rules of the House, it is the responsibility of the Chair to determine its merits and to resolve the point of order. [see Rules of Order and Decorum, Canada House of Commons]
The point of order raised by Dr. Mohammed Taufiq was on Standing Order 36(6) which says that no “member shall impute improper motives to any other member”. The Sungai Petani had asked, verbatim:
“Atas dasar apa bahawa Ketua Pembangkang mengatakan kerajaan hari ini adalah kerajaan penderhaka?” (See Hansard, 04.02.2025 at page 79)
The Deputy Speaker was then the Chair.
As part of his or her duty to preserve order and decorum, the Chair has a duty to decide any matter of procedure that may arise. The Chair is bound to call the attention of the House to an irregularity in debate or procedure immediately and decide the point of order once it arises or is raised by a member.
The Chair therefore should rule on the point of order – that is, on Standing Order 36(6). Curiously, the Chair didn’t. Instead, the Speaker (who took over from the Deputy Speaker as the Chair) ruled on Standing Order 36(2) which prohibits reference to “any matter which is sub judice in such a way as might in the opinion of the Chair prejudice the interests of parties” in the court proceedings.
The Speaker also ruled that the word “derhaka” violated Standing Order 36(7), prohibiting its use in the House.
With the greatest of respect, the reference to Standing Order 36(7) is incorrect. That Standing Order says that the “name of the Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong, or any of the Rulers, or of any of Their Excellencies the Yang di-Pertua-Yang di-Pertua Negeri shall not be used to influence the House”.
The correct Standing Order is Standing Order 36(4) which prohibits the use of offensive language or sexist remarks.
So, the Speaker did not rule on Standing Order 36(6) as raised as a point of order by Dr. Muhammed Taufiq and Lee Chuan How.
Did the Opposition Leader impute improper motives to another member or members?
One can only say that he got away with his “derhaka”, “menderhaka”, “diderhaka” and “penderhakaan” remarks in the Dewan Rakyat.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
