Press Statement By DAP Secretary-General And MP For Bagan Lim Guan Eng In Kuala Lumpur On 30.3.2017.
Will BN flip-flop again on PAS President Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang’s Private Member’s Bill, to amend Syariah Court Powers(RUU355) widely seen as a precursor to hudud, by allowing the Dewan Rakyat Speaker to give priority for RU355 to be tabled during the current Parliamentary sitting? BN can still determine the fate of RUU by allowing RUU355 to come up for debate in Parliament and even be passed. It is not the Speaker but BN that decides.
After all, it is the government of the day that decides the business of Parliament, not the Speaker of Dewan Rakyat. The Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat, being nominated by the BN Federal government, will have to go along with the direction of BN.
DAP is concerned that this is another one of BN’s dirty and devious political strategy to allow RUU 355 to be passed, without BN suffering from the negative brickbats from the public, for allowing an unconstitutional measure to be passed by ordinary legislation, when it should be by a constitutional amendment requiring a 2/3 majority of MPs.
BN has a history of flip-flops. Witness the broken promises by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak to repeal the Sedition Act. And on hudud, before the 2013 general elections, Najib stated that hudud is not suitable for a multi-racial nation like Malaysia. However Najib refused to assert that position after he started “romancing” PAS from Pakatan Harapan. Instead he indicated BN’s support, culminating in Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi announcing that the BN Federal government would adopt RUU 355, which would be tabled in Parliament by Zahid.
And now will there be another replay of the broken promises on RUU355? Only by ensuring that RUU 355 is not given any priority and not put up for debate in Parliament, can Malaysians move on forward as one nation or one people, and put the matter of RUU 355 behind us. DAP moved on decisively when it was clear that Hadi did not want to abide by the then Pakatan Rakyat common manifesto. Hadi had insisted on going on his own to move RUU 355, causing DAP to break ties with him and then PAS left PR.
Can Najib therefore give assurances that government business will be given priority and inform the Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat that RUU355 will not be allowed to be put up for debate and voted on in Parliament? Failure to do so will make meaningless Najib’s announcement that BN will not adopt RUU 355 as the government bill, when RUU 355 could still be debated on and approved in Parliament.
DAP’s stand against RUU 355 is based on the substance of the Federal Constitution. RUU 355 is clearly unconstitutional because it strikes at the very heart of Merdeka and the basis of which Malaysia was formed. Furthermore, technically and procedurally, it is also wrong to change the constitutional framework of our Federal Constitution by ordinary bill which requires only a simple majority of MPs present during voting, instead of a constitutional amendment which requires a 2/3 majority of MPs, which means a minimum of 148 MPs.
LIM GUAN ENG
—–Mandarin —-
民主行动党兼峇眼区国会议员林冠英于2017年3月30日在吉隆坡发表文告:
纳吉是否能确保现在一切以政府事务为优先，并告知国会下议院议长不允许355修正案提呈至国会辩论及投票？
对于伊斯兰党主席拿督斯里哈迪阿旺提呈的私人法案—355法令修正案，国阵的态度是否还会大转弯？国阵接下来会不会通过议长给予355法令修正案优先权，让这个被视为落实伊斯兰刑法前兆的私人法案在正进行中的国会上提呈？国阵由始至终掌握了这个法案的生死大权，不止可以让法案被提呈，甚至可以让法案通过，凡此种种，都由国阵来决定，而非议长。
说到底，政府决定国会该做什么、要做什么，从来不是由国会议长说了算。国会下议院的议长由国阵联邦政府提名，因此必须紧紧跟着国阵的方向前进。
民主行动党现在忧心的是，这会不会是国阵的另一个肮脏与狡猾的政治计谋？让355法令修正案通过的同时，国阵不必面对群众的强烈反弹，又能使用违宪的方式，让原本应该获得三分之二大多数支持才能过关的法案顺利通过。
国阵在历史上时常反反复复。我们就曾见证过首相纳吉违反要取消煽动法令的承诺、2013年大选纳吉还说过伊斯兰刑法不适合多元种族的马来西亚。然而，纳吉过后与民联的“伊斯兰党”双双走入”蜜运“之后，就再也没有拥护其之前的言论。 相反的，他不只指国阵支持，甚至到最后由副首相拿督斯里阿末扎希宣布国阵联邦政府将会接手355修正案，并由副首相自己提呈。
事到如今，到底会不会还有其他替代方案取代他们食言的355修正案呢？唯有确保355修正案不会获得优先处理及在国会辩论，全马人民才能将355修正案抛诸脑后继续以一个国家一个国民的身份共同迈进。 当哈迪不理民联的共同纲领，执意推行355修正案，行动党果断的作出决定，与哈迪断交，并促使伊斯兰党离开民联。
纳吉是否能确保现在一切以政府事务为优先，并告知国会下议院议长不允许355修正案提呈至国会辩论及投票？若无法办到就表示纳吉称不会接受355修正案作为政府法案的宣布是毫无意义的，因为355修正案仍然可能会被提呈辩论及在国会通过。
行动党是基于联邦宪法反对355修正案。355修正案很明显是违宪的，因为它直击马来西亚独立及立国之初的核心价值。再者，技术上及程序上以普通法案的国会简单多数投票修改联邦宪法的宪政框架是错误的，因为修改宪法至少要求三分之二的国会多数议席才能通过，也就是148个国会议席。
林冠英