THE motion to debate the seizure of Petronas assets by the heirs of the Sulu sultanate was not only rejected in Parliament yesterday but also in the Sabah state assembly sitting although the grounds of rejection were different.
In Parliament, sub judice was the reason given while in Sabah it was the time factor that was the issue.
Kota Belud MP Isnaraisah Munira Majilis gave notice to Dewan Rakyat speaker Datuk Azhar Azizan Harun to debate the motion on the seizure of Petronas assets by the heirs of Sulu sultanate on Monday, July 18, 2022.
However, the speaker disallowed the motion, citing sub judice rules which prevent the Lower House from debating matters in court.
If the motion had been allowed, it might have had interfered with the court in the dispensation of justice.
Sub-judice might be a valid point but not in all circumstances.
The speaker was unable to use his discretion to allow for the debate on the motion to take place not because it was sub judice, but because the debate might have been very embarrassing to the Government.
It might expose the shoddy matter in which the sovereignty of Sabah or the question of rights of the Sulu sultanate was dealt with in the past.
The court order that set aside the seizures of Petronas assets was meant to enable a full trial on the matter. The date of the trial is yet to be determined.
Such a hearing will be held in France.
There is no reason for the Parliament in Malaysia to pay so much attention to an undated pending matter.
I really don’t know how a parliamentary debate can affect the outcome of the trial in the French court.
The Parliament was the right forum in which elected representatives could articulate their views on such an important subject matter.
The MP from Sabah had all the reasons to submit the motion of the seizures of Petronas assets for debate.
If the Parliament in Malaysia is not the place to debate public issues, I don’t know where else could this pressing matter be debated in the country.
By refusing to allow the motion, the speaker has demonstrated that he is nothing but a stooge for the government in power.
It was expected that the speaker must have some degrees of autonomy even if he was appointed by the Government.
Who else is fit and proper to introduce the motion other than a MP from Sabah? She had all the rights in the world to introduce the motion for a debate.
Don’t forget that she is an elected representative from Sabah, the territory that is the subject of contention between Malaysia and the Sulu sultanate.
The principle of sub judice was mechanically applied in the matter of rejecting the motion.
In the last few days or so, no other issue has grabbed the attention of the Malaysian public other than the seizures of Petronas assets.
However, it is not about the seizures per se but about the sovereignty of Sabah.
The seizures of the two Petronas assets raised questions about the fate of Petronas’s other assets throughout the world.
I believe that Petronas has over 160 assets at the global level.
If the court in France can allow the seizures of the assets following full trial, this means that other assets are in danger of falling into the hands of the heirs of the Sulu sultanate.
The seizures were triggered by Malaysia stopping the payment of the annual stipend of RM5,300 to the heirs of the Sulu sultanate in 2013.
This was something agreed upon long before Sabah became part of the federation of Malaysia in 1963.
However, the incursion of insurgents in Sabah ostensibly on the behest of the Sulu sultanate irked Malaysia to the extent the stipends were cancelled.
An arbitration mechanism was introduced to resolve all outstanding matters between Malaysia and Sulu sultanate.
It was the cancellation of the agreed annual payments to the heirs of the Sulu sultanate that had triggered the seizures of Petronas assets.
The heirs are now demanding RM60 bil from the Malaysia Government for the loss suffered.
Of course, this whopping amount based is on the revenue from gas and petroleum extracted from Sabah.
MPs do not debate in Parliament for the sake of debating.
Most of the time, debates touch on policies that provide direction for the country in surmounting political, social and economic problems.
If the motion on the seizures of Petronas assets had been allowed, debates could have touched on why sovereignty of Sabah has yet to be resolved; why Barisan Nasional (BN) had committed the gross error of cancelling the annual stipends; and how the Government is going to overcome the obstacles in this matter.
The speaker’s ruling on disallowing the motion yesterday was a sad day for democracy in Malaysia.
It goes to show that the Parliament might be the rubber stamp of the directionless Executive in the country. – July 19, 2022
Prof Ramasamy Palanisamy is the state assemblyperson for Perai. He is also deputy chief minister II of Penang.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
