-K. Siladass, April 1, 2016.

        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 upon 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 it outside Parliament relinquishing Parliamentary privilege. And if the Mmember 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 in point is Abdul Rahman Talib v. Seenivasagam & Anor [1965] 2 MLJ 142; and [1966] 2 MLJ 66 (Malayan Law Journal), 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 the 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 takes action on its own to preserve its dignity when a Member speaks or acts which tantamount to scandalous abuse of Parliamentary privilege.