Parliamentary Privilege
by K. Siladass
Although
a member represents one parliamentary constituency needless to remind that his
or her duty, obligation and responsibility are towards the country. He has to
protect the integrity of the august house. Furthermore, it must be remembered
that members of Parliament represent the people who had empowered them to enact
laws for the good and safety of the country, and of its people. It is,
therefore, incumbent of every member of Parliament to speak the truth, and when
he or she says something capable of evoking sensation, or cast aspersion on any
person whether that person is a member of Parliament or otherwise, the member who
levels accusation carries the additional burden to prove what he or she said in
Parliament is actually true, or that there was reasonable cause which made it
essential to bring it to the notice of Parliament, and be brave to face the
consequences.
A
legislator must be brave to express the views he feels – genuinely feels – which
calls for an explanation and must stand by what was expressed, and most
importantly when impugned, must be ready and willing to substantiate what has
been said in Parliament, rather that shielding behind parliamentary privilege.
When
a member of Parliament says something which is scandalous, the immediate
reaction would be for the person affected, whether a member of Parliament or
not, to challenge the member who uttered the defamatory statement to repeat
them outside parliament relinquishing parliamentary privilege. And if the
member who uttered the defamatory statement accepts the challenge, then, the same
statement could be repeated at a place out of Parliament. But, not all members
who enjoy the protection of parliamentary privilege would be ready to accept
the challenge because their motive may not be to elicit the truth, but to sow
the seed of suspicion in the fertile ground of malicious falsehood thus confuse
the people, therefore, they will not repeat the scandalous, libellous statement
outside parliament fearing the loss of privilege and immunity. Such a member
who seeks the umbrage of Parliamentary privilege after having made scandalous
remarks cannot be any better than a coward.
The
affected person is not without any remedy. Parliament has the procedure to deal
with any unfounded allegation that may be made by any member in Parliament, thus,
it would be worthwhile to look at the parliamentary standing orders.
A
case on point is Abdul Rahman Talib v. Seenivasagam & Anor [1965] 2 MLJ 142;
and [1966] 2 MLJ 66*, there Seenivasagam, a prominent opposition leader and
parliamentarian made a statement in parliament of corrupt practices by Abdul
Rahman Talib, a Minister. Rahman Talib challenged Seenivasagam to repeat the
statement outside parliament and which challenge was accepted. Seenivasagam
repeated what he had already said in Parliament in a public place. In his
speech at Chinese Assembly Hall, Kuala Lumpur on 11 September 1963,
Seenivasagam stated:
“You
allege that I besmirched your character in the House (Parliament). You are
wrong, because you could have asked the House to punish me under standing
orders with a maximum penalty of $1000 or two weeks jail.”
Rahman
Talib did sue Seenivasagam but lost.
The
House itself in appropriate circumstances take action on its own to preserve
its dignity when a member speaks or acts which tantamount to scandalous abuse
of parliamentary privilege.
* MLJ (Malayan Law Journal)
No comments:
Post a Comment