Letter to the Editor
By Gerard Lim
An elected representative has every right to question how public money is spent. At the same time, he must also substantiate serious allegations and respect the person chairing the debate.
Sarawak Democratic Action Party (DAP) chairman and Padungan assemblyman Chong Chieng Jen’s conduct in the recent Sarawak Legislative Assembly deserves careful scrutiny on both counts.
On Oct 14, Chong questioned the Falcon 8X aircraft lease involving Cempaka Helicopter Corporation and Hornbill Skyways for State government use. He raised the State Secretary’s roles in government and Hornbill and referred to the Premier as the aircraft’s user. The Deputy Speaker Datuk Idris Buang pressed Chong Chieng Jen to verify his sources.
Chong referred to a PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report and transaction documents. The Deputy Speaker replied: “No, I’m not satisfied.” Chong later complained: “So, Tuan Speaker, you have wasted a lot of my time.” The Deputy Speaker asserted his authority to control proceedings. After Chong asked to be treated fairly, the Deputy Speaker told him: “Please, don’t insult the chair.”
In this writer’s view, complaining that a demand for verification wastes time is an unacceptable response from a lawmaker. Chong should not be responding that way. Explaining the evidence behind a damaging statement is part of his job, and when the discussion turned to the nature of Chong’s allegation, he said: “Tuan Speaker, I totally agree with you that I am not making any allegation of criminal practice.”
Those words matter. Chong’s answer was explicit: ‘Tuan Speaker, I totally agree with you that I am not making any allegation of criminal practice.’ That answer raised a separate issue that required explanation: how the documents he cited supported the criticism he advanced. Chong expressly stated that he was not alleging criminal practice. He nevertheless remained responsible for explaining how the documents supported the criticism he had advanced.
In this writer’s assessment, Chong was required to explain the connection between his documents and his criticism. Referring to a report and disclaiming an allegation of criminal practice did not answer the chair’s separate demand for substantiation. Naming a report is only the start—he must show what it proves, but Chong has declared his position that “Tuan Speaker, I totally agree with you that I am not making any allegation of criminal practice.”
The next day, the House suspended Chong for the rest of the sitting by a vote of 62 to 1, with one abstention. The suspension motion covered his Budget-document remarks on Oct 13 and his conduct during the Oct 14 debate. Its stated grounds included misleading statements, assertions he could not justify when challenged, offensive language, and improper motives attributed to other members.
The Speaker identified four rules of the Sarawak Legislative Assembly: Standing Order 32(4), concerning offensive and insulting language about members; 32(6), concerning improper motives and allegations a member is unprepared to substantiate; 32(10)(d), concerning information he cannot verify; and 32(12), concerning deliberately misleading the House. The Speaker stated that the speeches breached those rules, and the House adopted the suspension motion.
In this writer’s objective assessment, these Standing Orders are Rules for the orderly management of the Sarawak Legislative Assembly, and failing to observe them can lead to chaos.
Legislative privilege gives members strong protection when speaking in the chamber. It carries a responsibility to use that freedom carefully. On the recorded exchange and the Speaker’s ruling, Chong’s conduct is highly questionable, and Sarawakians deserve representatives who explain their evidence and respect the rules while demanding answers from the government.
Gerard Lim is a businessman.
This is the personal opinion of the author(s) and does not necessarily represent the views of DayakDaily. Letters to the Editor may be lightly edited for clarity.
— DayakDaily
