Whether the basic
principle “The Speaker of Pyidaungsu Hluttaw shall
convene a special session of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw when at least one fourth
of the total number of members of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw ask to convene
the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw” should be adopted or not is to be discussed
YANGON, 14 Dec—The following is
the presentation on clarifications of National Convention Convening Work
Committee Chairman on adoption of detailed basic principles for legislation of
Pyidaungsu Hluttaw to be included in judicial sector for formulating State
Constitution by Vice-Chairman of the National Convention Convening Work
Committee U Aye Maung at the plenary session held yesterday at Nyaunghnapin Camp
in Hmawby Township, Yangon Division.
The National Convention has
already laid down the basic principles “The Head of State is the President of
the Union. The President of the Pyidaungsu represents the nation. The President
shall exercise the responsibilities and rights assigned and vested by the
constitution and other laws”. According to the principles, the responsibilities
and rights to be assigned to and vested will be included in the constitution and
other laws.
The sub para 2 of the section 80
of the 1947 Constitution stated, “The President, after consultation with the
Speaker of the Chamber of Nationalities and the Speaker of the Chamber of
Deputies, may make rules as to the procedure with respect to joint sittings of,
and communications between the two Chambers. The bylaws to the procedures of the
joint sitting of the two chambers were laid down. The Present shall summon the
joint session by issuing a notification stating the time, venue and agenda of
the meeting. Nothing can be discussed without the President’s approval except
the matters contained in the notification.
The Article 51 of the 1974
Constitution stated, “The Council of State may summon a special or an emergency
session of the Pyithu Hluttaw where necessary.”
The President, who is the
Executive Head may face the occurrence of unusual situation in political,
security, economic and social sectors of the state that needs emergency action.
In such situations, the President should have the right to inform the Speaker of
the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw to call a special session or an emergency session of the
Pyidaungsu Hluttaw to take necessary action that requires submission to the
Pyidaungsu Hluttaw.
Moreover, the President should
also have the right to inform the Speaker about the calling of a special session
or an emergency session of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw to discuss and decide a bill
he believes is a matter that needs immediate action for the people’s interest.
There may be a situation that
requires the calling of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw for the people’s interest in
accord with the principle — the branches of State power, namely legislative
power, executive power and judicial power are separated as much as possible and
exert reciprocal control, check and balance among themselves. Hence, a detail
basic principle — The Pyidaungsu Hluttaw Speaker shall call of a special session
or an emergency session of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw soonest if the President
informs the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw Speaker of the matter concerning the call of a
special session or an emergency session of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw — should be
laid down.
In this regard, delegates are
suggested to consider whether a basic principle “The Pyidaungsu Hluttaw Speaker
shall convene a special session or an emergency session of the Pyidaungsu
Hluttaw soonest when the President informs the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw Speaker to
convene a special session or an emergency session of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw ”
should be adopted as a detailed basic principle.
Now I will explain the matter
concerning the demand made by the members to call the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw. We
have already studied that in the constitutions of some world nations stating the
number of MPs needed to call a parliament meeting. The constitutions of some
other nations fix the number of MPs needed to call a parliament meeting at one
fifth, one fourth, one third or two fifths of the total number of MPs. In my
opinion, Pyidaungsu Hluttaw members should also have the constitutional right to
call the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw. The number of Hluttaw members to call the Hluttaw
should be neither too many nor too few. In my view, it will be appropriate if
the number of Hluttaw members needed to call the Hluttaw is at fixed one fourth
of the total.
Thus, the delegates should
suggest whether the basic principle “The Speaker of Pyidaungsu Hluttaw shall
convene a special session of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw when at least one fourth of
the total number of members of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw ask to convene the
Pyidaungsu Hluttaw” should be adopted.
I will now explained the task of
fixing the number of Hluttaw members required to call the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw.
The sub para 2 of the section 69 of the 1947 Constitution stated, “The number of
members necessary to constitute the quorum of either Chamber for the exercise of
its powers shall be determined by its rules.” The rule 2 stated that the number
of MPs required to call a joint sitting of the two chambers should be at least
100.
The Article 207 of the 1974
Constitution stated, “The number of people’s representatives which shall
constitute the quorum at meetings of the Pyithu Hluttaw and the People’s
Councils at different levels shall be 75 per cent of all the people’s
representatives.”
Some world nations state the
matter concerning the validity of the parliament meeting in the constitution,
and others in the bylaws. Some countries prescribe that majority of the members
must be present for the validity of a meeting, while some fix the quorum at one
tenth, one fourth, or one third, of the total number.
But in our country the fixing of
the quorum for validity of the Hluttaw meetings should be based on the number of
members who can attend the meeting at any time or any situation. We should also
weigh up the fact that the making of a decision by the Hluttaw should not be
made by smaller number of Hluttaw members.
The quorum for the validity of a
meeting should be based on the total number of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw members.
Only then we will be able to avoid the disputes resulting from the vacant posts
of the members who have not been elected for various reasons, elected members
who have not taken the oath, and the members who passed away.
There may be meetings that are postponed due to invalidity and that are extended
for more days. Thus, the postponed meetings and the meeting continues for more
days should be taken into account in fixing the quorum for the validity of a
Pyidaungsu Hluttaw meeting.
First we will have to lay down a
stipulation for the validity of the first day meeting of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw.
In my view it is appropriate to announce the first day meeting valid only if
majority of members attend the meeting. If the first day meeting is invalid, the
meeting will be postponed. The postponed meeting when convened again should be
announced valid if one third of the members of the total number of members
attend it. Only then we will be able to avoid delays caused due to postponement
of invalid meetings.
Thus, the delegates should
consider whether the following detailed basic principles should be adopted.
(a) “The first day session of the
Pyidaungsu Hluttaw shall be valid if more than half the number of members, who
have the right to attend the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw meeting, are present. The
meeting if invalid, shall be adjourned.
(b) “The meetings that are
adjourned due to invalidity in accord with the sub para (a) as well as the valid
meetings that are extended will be valid if at least one third of the Hluttaw
members are present.”
The parliaments make decision
after obtaining the approval of the members. In some parliaments the decisions
are made with the approval of the members whose number is not less than
three-fourths of the total and in others, one two-thirds of the vote of MPs. For
normal matters, some parliaments make decisions with the approval over half of
the number of total and others through the votes of the MPs.
According to the basic principles
of the State structure, re-delineation of the territorial boundary of the
Pyidaungsu needs votes of more than half of the total number of representatives
of the Amyotha Hluttaw, votes of more half of the total number of
representatives of the Pyithu Hluttaw, and votes of more than half of the number
of representatives from the region or state involving the boundary concerned in
the two Hluttaws. The opinion of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw must be sought, if the
respective chambers fail to receive required number of votes. The boundary
re-delineation can be carried out only if three-fourths and upwards of the total
number of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw representatives assent.
A detailed basic principle says
that if the boundary re-delineation of a region or state requires the decision
of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, it needs three fourths and upwards of the total
number of Pyidaungsu Hluttaw representatives.
There may be other cases which
require the specific number of votes of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw members for
decisions. How the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw receive assent and votes for the matters
to be carried out with the decision and confirmation of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw,
without specific conditions, should be prescribed.
The sub-section 1 of the section
69 of the 1947 Constitution stated, “All questions at any sitting or joint
sitting of the Chambers shall, save as otherwise provided by this Constitution,
be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting, other
than the Speaker or person acting as such, who shall not vote in the first
instance, but shall have and exercise a casting vote in the case of an equality
of votes.”
Majority of world nations accept
the practice of making decisions on majority of votes. Thus, a detailed basic
principle is required for the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw to make decisions based on
majority of votes for the matters that are not prescribed in the constitution
the number of votes needed for decisions.
The voting right of the Speaker
of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw should also be fixed. As it was stated in the 1947
constitution, it should be prescribed that normally the Speaker shall vote, he
but shall have and exercise a casting vote in the case of an equality of votes.
Thus, the delegates should
discuss whether the following detailed basic principles should be adopted:
(a) Save as otherwise provided by
this Constitution, a matter that should be decided through voting, shall be
determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting.
(b) The Speaker of the Pyidaungsu
Hluttaw or the Deputy Speaker acting as such, shall not vote in the first
instance, but shall have and exercise a casting vote in the case of an equality
of votes.
The Pyidaungsu Hluttaw members
have the duty to punctually attend the meetings. I will now discuss the action
that will be taken against a member who is absent from the meetings without
leave. Concerning the matter, the section 73 of the 1947 Constitution stated,
“If for a period of thirty days a member of either Chamber is without permission
of the Chamber absent from all meetings thereof, the Chamber may declare his
seat vacant. Provided that in computing the said period of thirty days on
account shall be taken of any period during which the Chamber is prorogued, or
is adjourned for more than four consecutive days.”
In the sub article (h) of the
Article 35 of 1974 Constitution, it was stated that punctual attending of the
Hluttaw meeting is the duty of Hluttaw representatives. The bylaw 94 of the
Pyithu Hluttaw stated that if a representative could not attend a session on
health grounds or other reasons, he should ask permission from the Chairman. The
para 8 of the bylaw No 12 also said that if a representative failed to attend a
session, the members of the panel should decide what action should be taken
against him.
The constitutions of the world
nations have the rules to terminate a representative from his seat if he is
absent without permission for many consecutive days.
A Pyidaungsu Hluttaw member
should ask permission for his failure to attend meeting for unavoidable
conditions to the Speaker. The time fixed for a member to ask permission for the
leave should be appropriate for him. At this age 15 days will be an appropriate
time for him to ask permission for leave. Action will be taken against a member
if he is absent from Pyidaungsu Hluttaw meetings for 15 consecutive days. In
computing the said period of 15 days on account should be taken of any period
during which the hluttaw is prorogued or is adjourned.
A Pyidaungsu Hluttaw member is
also a member of the Pyithu Hluttaw or the Amyotha Hluttaw. Pyithu Hluttaw
members and Amyotha Hluttaw members attending the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw meetings as
Pyidaungsu Hluttaw members should observe the law, rbylaws and principles of the
respective Hluttaws in addition to the law, bylaws and principles of the
Pyidaungsu Hluttaw. The Pyidaungsu Hluttaw will not take any specific action
against a member absent from the meeting for a number of consecutive days. If he
is a Pyithu Hluttaw member he will face action according to the law and bylaws
of the Pyithu Hluttaw, and if he is a Amyotha Hluttaw member, he will be
punished according to the law and bylaws of the Amyotha Hluttaw.
Hence, delegates should discuss
whether the detailed basic principle “If for a period of 15 consecutive days a
member of Pyidaungsu Hluttaw is, without permission of the Speaker absent from
all meetings of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, Speaker shall inform the Hluttaw
concerned to take action against the member according to the prescribed rules.
Provided that in computing the said period of 15 days no account shall be taken
of any period during which the Chamber is prorogued, or is adjourned.” should be
adopted.
For various reasons including the
failure to hold the election in some regions, and the demise of the elected
members, there may be vacant seats in the Pyithu Hluttaw and the Amyotha Hluttaw.
Although there may be vacant seats, the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw should have the right
to carry out its tasks for continued running of its functions.
In my view, there must be a
detailed basic principle to protect the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw’s decisions and
functions from some person who was not entitled to do so sat or vote or
otherwise took part in the proceedings when his acts are discovered later.
The sub section 3 of the section
69 of the 1947 Constitution stated, “A Chamber or Parliament shall have power to
act notwithstanding any vacancy in the membership thereof, and any proceedings
in the Parliament shall be valid notwithstanding that it is discovered
subsequently that some person who was not entitled to do so voted or otherwise
took part in the proceedings.”
Constitutions of some nations
include the provision saying that a session will not be cancelled, if the acts
of some person who was not entitled to do so sat or vote or took part in the
proceedings are found later.
Thus, the delegates should
discuss whether the detailed basic principle “Although there are vacant seats,
the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw shall have the right to carry out its tasks. Moreover,
the session shall not be annulled, if the acts of some person who was not
entitled to do so sat or vote or took part in the proceedings are discovered
later” to be adopted.
|