Whose is the bias?

The principal allegation -- that Jamiruddin Sircar has virtually proved his loyalty to the Treasury Bench rather than to the House itself -- is baseless and not backed by any instance or evidence. And that "he never initiated any significant step to uphold the dignity of the House and often remained silent against contravention of the Parliamentary affairs to some extent" begs the question as to what the writer means by "significant step." The dignity of the Parliament is inherent and unquestionable. Initiation of any step or steps to uphold the dignity of the House without any cause having arisen, would be fanciful and tend towards lowering the dignity of the House. However, nothing has been stated as to where and how there has been any contravention of parliamentary affairs.

It is axiomatic that the Speaker of the Parliament be cognisant of the fact that the symbol of power and authority he wields emanates from the constitution, rules of procedure, and laws. To travel beyond that is an abuse of power. Sircar is a trained barrister of long standing. He is well aware of the fine distinction between authority and the exercise of unauthorised power. Basically introverted, he is most unlikely to demonstrate attitudes of pride or to show off. One of the reasons that he was chosen to represent Bangladesh in the Legal Committee of the United Nations General Assembly consecutively for five years from 1977 to 1981 was the fact that he was recognised as being competent and dependable.

Sircar's rulings have all along been backed by law. It is immaterial to the Speaker whether such rulings as he gives, and which are supported by law, go in favour of one party or the other.

The so-called ban on private television channels in Parliament is not a new innovation by Sircar. No other media except BTV was allowed before, though ETV had been functioning outside. He has merely followed in the footsteps of his predecessors. The allegations of indifference to the opposition and reluctance to protect lawmakers' rights, or on ban on electronic media, have no justification.

In addition, security is not a lame excuse in view of what happened in the Indian parliament. The article goes on to mention stray allegations of violating the constitution, made by his deputy, of making the parliamentary body "dysfunctional," and dubs him a "messenger" for carrying out the order of the executive, all of which are false and defamatory.

Then there is the letter issued by the Hon'ble Minister for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs on February 3, which was passed on to the lawmakers of the ruling party. Much has been made about this, but the Speaker's stated reason for doing so was only to protect the members from the consequence of Article 70 of the constitution. Maybe the Hon'ble Speaker has saved the ruling party MPs from the risk of being unseated. This, of course, does not apply to bills placed by other MPs. It is not a question of allowing the executive to interfere with the parliamentary process, but as the guardian of the House, it is incumbent upon the Speaker to lead MPs on the right legal path.

The article alleges that members of panel of chairmen are not allowed to preside in the House in the absence of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker. But the fact of the matter is that I myself have presided over a session of parliament and so have many of my other colleagues. The procedure as to when members of the panel of chairmen will preside is guided by Article 74(3) of the constitution, read with Rule 2(cc) of the Rules of Procedure.

Sircar has issued hundreds of rulings couched in constitutional or legal reasoning, unlike his immediate predecessors who merely allowed or disallowed the rulings, without assigning any legal reasoning whatsoever.

What constitutes a quorum is very clear under Article 75(2) of the constitution, which reads as follows: "[I]f at any time during which Parliament is in session the attention of the person presiding is drawn to the fact that the number of members present is less than sixty, he shall either suspend the meeting until at least sixty members are present or adjourn it."

The operative legal catch is when "attention of the person presiding is drawn." So, unless the attention of the Speaker is drawn to the fact that attendance of members has dropped below sixty, the question of lack of quorum does not arise. There is no ambiguity.

"Madam" is a respectable word. But this has also been taken as a mark of criticism against the Speaker. To address the Leader of the House or Leader of the Opposition, who both happen to be ladies, as "Madam" is not a departure from Parliamentary practice or norm. There is nothing wrong if the Speaker sometimes addressed the Leader of the House as "Madam."

The writer of the article has made a further conjectural leap by blaming the Speaker of "indifference to the opposition" without mentioning any specifics.

It is ridiculous to make a bald statement that the Speaker did not take any step when Ahsanullah Master was gunned down in Gazipur. The killings of both late Hon'ble Ahsanullah Master and late Hon'ble SAMS Kibria were fully discussed, and resolutions of condolences were passed on the opening session of the Parliament.

In these circumstances, it is the usual practice for the Speaker to be informed by, either a member of the family or by the partymen, or the matter is brought to his notice by his office of Director of Public Relations. On the occasion of Mr Kibria's death, this was presumably not done, and the Speaker remained uninformed till late evening, but having come to know, the Speaker did contact and speak to members of the deceased's families.

The allegation that the Speaker did not initiate any significant step to bring the opposition into Parliament except for welcoming them to come to the Parliament in his address in the beginning of the session and at the time of proroguing the session, also begs the question. What significant step is the writer contemplating? He has not stated. The Speaker has engaged the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and important MPs of the opposition, welcoming them to the Parliament, but their constant refrain has been that the matter lies with the Leader of the Opposition.

It is completely untrue to assert that the Treasury Bench did not agree to hold the discussion on notices. General debate on the grenade issue was open. Unfortunately, the opposition did not participate. On the face of non-participation, could there be any fruitful discussion on any issue, even if it was further allowed by the Speaker?

Discussion, adjourning other business of the day, can certainly be made provided that issue should be of sufficient dimension or any matter when time is the essence of the issue. Short of that, adjournment motions should not be taken lightly. However, I fail to understand the clamour of the opposition for adjournment motions while they themselves shall remain absent.

The standing committees have been functioning systematically and successfully. The present Speaker has for the first time allowed the committee or sub-committee members to hold meetings at different places of different districts, which is a departure from the standard practice. On the production of documents before committees, it is the inherent power of committees to seek documents and the government is bound to make them available, except such as are covered by the doctrine of privileged communication. I am unaware of the Speaker's interference in this matter.

The legislature is an independent organ, true. But it does not, and cannot, function in isolation. Under the Rules of Procedure, in some matters consultation with the Leader of the House is necessary. This is how, cohesive and workable relationship is maintained by the legislature with the government.

It was not luck but constitutional exigency that made the Speaker the President for a short while. The provisions of Article 54 puts the Speaker under a constitutional obligation to act as President until a new President assumed office.

In conclusion, an unfortunate bias seems to run throughout the article. While attempting to take the Speaker to task, the writer has conveniently overlooked the damaging role of the opposition, resulting in the presentation of a lop-sided article amounting to gross falsification of parliamentary history of the past four years within which time the Speaker:

(i) has allowed the Leader of the Opposition to speak for about one hour twenty-five minutes at a stretch, yet this was followed by a walkout;

(ii) has placed the parliamentary record which shows that the opposition members have been given more time to speak, in proportion to their strength in Parliament, than the time given to the Treasury Bench members;

(iii) has allowed opposition MPs to participate in conferences abroad;

(iv) has done many ancillary acts for the improvement of MPs' parliamentary knowledge.

Any politician is fair game. This I accept. But journalists have an onerous responsibility, as I know full well, having been a journalist myself, and that responsibility must be discharged after a careful evaluation of the total picture that he or she wishes to present. Criticism is good, but reckless criticism can do more harm than good, and no journalist worth his salt can afford to view things through jaundiced eyes which will draw against himself and his esteemed paper the fatal indifference of their large readership.

Ziaur Rahman Khan is a Member of Parliament.