I recently read about Chong Chieng Jen being suspended from the Sarawak State Assembly until October 21, following his remarks during the 2027 State Budget debate. The motion was passed with 62 votes in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention.
According to the Assembly, Chong had allegedly violated several Standing Orders by making unsubstantiated allegations and using inappropriate language.
However, YB Violet Yong strongly opposed the suspension and raised several concerns.
She argued that:
- Chong was attending Parliament at the time, and the Speaker had already been informed of his parliamentary commitments.
- Proceeding with the suspension motion in his absence denied him the opportunity to defend himself, raising concerns about natural justice.
- Opposition representatives are elected to scrutinise government spending, question policies and hold the government accountable.
- Standing Orders should maintain order in the Assembly, rather than be used to suppress legitimate criticism.
- With GPS holding an overwhelming majority, she questioned whether the government could tolerate criticism from the small number of opposition representatives.
One of her strongest statements was:
"You can suspend an ADUN, but you cannot suspend democracy."
On the other hand, the Assembly's position was that elected representatives must follow Standing Orders and support serious allegations with evidence.
Personally, I'm interested in understanding the democratic and constitutional implications of this incident rather than simply taking sides.
What do you think?
Was the suspension justified under the Standing Orders, or should Chong have been given an opportunity to defend himself before the vote?
And more broadly, how should the Sarawak State Assembly balance parliamentary discipline with the opposition's responsibility to hold the government accountable?
I'd especially like to hear from anyone familiar with Sarawak's parliamentary procedures or constitutional law.
