Media Statement By Violet Yong:
The motion to amend the standing order is deemed as a ‘gag’ order to oppress and suppress opposition voices by stifling meaningful discussion when members of the Houses and those in authority are queried or questioned.
Exposing issues and truth to maintain public trust or ensure good governance is a “check and balance” that we, as Opposition, must bring up in the hope of stopping any malpractice.
It is because the truth hurts so much that the Standing Order with new amendments has to be imposed on the opposition members to stop us from spilling the beans. I believe by zipping our lips with the new amendments will lead to more and wider abuse of power or corruption with no fear of anyone talking about it.
How can the standing order be made so that anyone who asks questions or makes statements, to verify statements, allegations or comments in newspapers, online news portal, social media and other online platforms, or of private individuals or bodies, whether they are accurate or truthful. It is a ridiculous move.
All the newspaper or news portal might as well close shop if the news reported were deemed to be inaccurate and not true.
There are many avenues for members in this house to clarify themselves but gagging us should be the last thing to do. It is obvious the Standing Order is to create a culture of fear to stop the opposition from speaking against the government or individuals, and to expose malpractice, abuses of power, or scandals.
We in the opposition are just carrying out our responsibilities expected from the people, but this August House is forbidding us from speaking out. Where is democracy? Democracy is dead i would say. These proposed changes are a step backward to undermine our duty for an open debate.
Why does this House feel the need to be so protective of its members? Should members act with responsibility and integrity, they should have no fear of exposure to any wrongdoing.
The motion to amend the standing order make us wonder are the members from the GPS are so vulnerable or so problematic that they need the protection of standing order to prevent anyone from speaking out about them?
By such oppression, it will cause the public to distrust the government more. If the state government is genuinely committed to transparency and good governance, it should welcome criticism as part of the democratic process. Constructive criticism is a vital check on power and helps identify areas for improvement. By tightening standing orders in this Assembly, there is a real risk that these rules will prioritize protecting political interests over the public good.
Should a member feel that he should not be criticized for any wrong doing or for common good, then I would say the platform of being a ‘peoples representative’ is not a job for them. He or she might as well stay at home and sleep.
