Latest news with #StandingOrder15
New Straits Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- New Straits Times
Kiandee suggests specific provision in Standing Orders for vote of no confidence
KUALA LUMPUR: An opposition lawmaker has proposed that a specific provision on a vote of no confidence be formally included in the Standing Orders of the Dewan Rakyat. Datuk Seri Ronald Kiandee (PN-Beluran) said, at present, such motions can only be submitted under Standing Order 27(3), which applies to all government motions and requires the approval of the Dewan Rakyat speaker. He said under Standing Order 15, such motions could be bypassed in favour of government business, which is given priority. "The time has come for this Parliament to introduce a dedicated provision allowing for a formal vote of no confidence. "There are two key elements that must be specified in the Standing Orders — first, that it can be done, and second, that it must be conducted by secret ballot. "Currently, there are only two instances where secret ballots are permitted — during the election of the speaker and the deputy speakers. "Therefore, a specific provision must be institutionalised both legally and within the Standing Orders. I urge the House Committee to consider this proposal," he said during the debate on the 13th Malaysia Plan (13MP) in the Dewan Rakyat. Kiandee, who is a former deputy speaker, added that countries such as New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Australia already have specific parliamentary mechanisms for no-confidence votes. He said Malaysia should emulate this if it is serious about upholding the rule of law and parliamentary integrity. "I know the current speaker says the opposition is free to submit a vote of no confidence and ensure it is tabled. Some government MPs say if the opposition is brave enough, they can table it — but we disagree with that view. "We must look beyond the current situation. These statements come at a time when the government enjoys a comfortable majority and when voting is not conducted in secret. "If we are serious about elevating the institution of Parliament — not just for this session, but for future ones as well — then real reform is needed." Kiandee also called for amendments to anti-party provisions under the Federal Constitution, which he said had failed to fulfil their original purpose. He cited the case of six Bersatu members of parliament who declared support for the government last year, yet Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Johari Abdul ruled that their seats would not be vacated. When challenged in court, the decision did not favour the opposition — not based on the facts of the case, but because the speaker's ruling was protected from judicial review under Article 63(1) of the Federal Constitution. "Are we as a Parliament celebrating what has become of the anti-party hopping (provisions) meant to prevent MPs from switching allegiances? Is this really what we wanted? "The court's decision stands, but the real question is whether this outcome reflects Parliament's intent when the provisions were enacted.
Business Recorder
02-08-2025
- Business
- Business Recorder
Closure of industrial, commercial establishments: Sindh govt, not labour court, has jurisdiction to decide cases: SC
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court declared that under the Sindh Terms of Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 2015, the jurisdiction to decide cases of closure of industrial or commercial establishment is vested in the Government of Sindh, rather than the Labour Court. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, heard appeals against the Sindh High Court (SHC) verdict. The transitory facts of the case are that the petitioner (M/s Trio Industries (Pvt) Limited) was engaged in the business of printing of ceramic tiles on finished products manufactured by other ceramic tiles production companies. Due to the advancement of technology, the process of printing tiles has become an integral part of the manufacturing process, hence the petitioner's enterprise was no more a viable venture. The petitioner on 02.03.2017 applied to the Labour Department, instead of the Sindh Government, under Standing Order 15 of the Sindh Terms of Employment (Standing Orders) Act 2015 for permission to close down the factory. During the closure process, the respondents (employees of the factory) filed their Grievance Petition before the Labour Court and alleged that due to trade union activities, the petitioner has decided to remove them from service. They asserted that no proper application was moved to the Government of Sindh for seeking their approval in the closure of the establishment, which was the wrong method. SC determines right meaning of FMCG products The Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, dismissed the grievance petitions. The respondents then filed appeals under Section 48 (3) of the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 (SIRA). The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi directed the petitioner to deposit the stipulated amount of compensation within one month. The petitioner filed a constitution petition before the Sindh High Court, which was also dismissed. The petitioner's stance was that the Joint Director, Labour, represents the government and the application for closing down the establishment was rightly submitted to him, as he was the proper authority for submission of such application, and hence, intimation or notice to the Chief Secretary, Sindh, was not required. The judgment noted that under Standing Order 15 of the 2015 Act, an application for closing down the establishment was to be moved to the Government of Sindh, rather the Labour Department. If, under Standing Order 15, the application for permission to close down was not decided within 15 days of its submission, the said application could be deemed to have been granted/allowed, it added. It said there must be some well structured procedure and mechanism to deal with and decide the applications submitted to the Government of Sindh for closing down the establishment in terms of Standing Order 15 of the 2015 Act. 'No doubt, the powers are given to the government, but there is no procedure to decide such application except providing the outer limit of 15 days; that, too, is in favour of the employer, to presume that his application is allowed if it was not decided or responded to within 15 days. Therefore, a clean slate is accorded to the employer to immediately shut down the whole business/establishment without checking whether the action is bona fide or mala fide or, while doing so, if the full and final accrued dues of employees have been settled or not. 'On the contrary, while assuming jurisdiction to accord permission, it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the close down is bona fide and permission is granted after ensuring the payment of dues to the employees.' The judgment said there is a need to enact a fool-proof procedure to deal with, examine, and decide such applications after hearing the employer and employees/their representative/Trade Union/CBA, and then render a speaking order so that an aggrieved person may file an appeal in the Labour Court in terms of Standing Order 15 of the 2015 Act. The court recommended that some necessary amendments in the 2015 Act or some rules or Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are required to be enacted in the best interest of workers, to save them from unlawful removal from service in case of mala fide attempts/schemes, and also from deprivation of their lawful dues in case bona fide of employer is proved. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
