Interruptions without sequence-request clarification on uncertainties

I will start by examining the instances in which Chairperson accomplished accountability through interruptions by requesting further clarification on uncertainties. I will use two extracts for this purpose.

104 Extract 1

While discussing the amendments to the Internal Security Bill, Lim Kian Siew (from the Alliance) argued with Tun Abdul Razak (from the Alliance) on Tun’s suggestion to add another phrase to Section 8 (1) (b) … “shall be for such period, not exceeding two years…” Lim Kian Siew said there was a ‘simpler way’ to amend this sub-section by introducing a phrase at the introduction of the clause as an introduction to sub-section (a) and (b) because sub-section (1) (a) also contains a phrase mentioning ‘not exceeding two years’. Later, the Chairperson interrupted him:

Chairperson [Mohamed Noah Omar]: I want to know whether this is an amendment to the amendment or not, because we already have an amendment to sub-clause (b) introduced by the mover of this Bill.

Extract 2

Lim Kian Siew then suggested an amendment to Section 59 under sub-section (1), (2) and (3).

He proposed to discard the word “outside” because it is read from the first line of the sub-sections “Any person who whether within or outside a security area…” which could mean there would be no boundaries between a secured and unsecured area in the security perimeter.

Therefore, he suggested to rephrase the introduction by removing the word “whether” and “or outside” so that the new sentence would read “Any person who within a security area…”

Before Lim Kian Siew could proceed with his explanation, the Chairperson interrupted him:

Chairperson [Mohamed Noah Omar]: I am not quite sure whether you want to amend also subsections (2) and (3). I think you have to.

In the two examples above, the Chairperson made the MPs accountable for their suggested amendments of the Internal Security bill. The Chairperson accomplished this in two ways. The first was by constructing a state of uncertainty and requesting justification on the suggestions made by the MP. In extract 1, accountability was accomplished with the phrase ‘I want to know whether…’ Here, the word ‘whether’ indicates the Chairperson’s uncertainties on the discussed issue. Similarly, in extract 2, the Chairperson’s use of ‘not quite sure’ and ‘whether’ was to construct the availability of unyielding uncertainties, which needed further justification from the MP.

In both extracts, the Chairperson’s request for further justification on the statement or suggestion made by the MP appeared significant for the discussion. In extract 1, this was

105

achieved when the Chairperson said ‘because we already have an amendment to sub-clause (b) made by the mover…’ which indicates a further impact on the amendment made. In extract 2, a further request for justification on the statement made by the MP is evident from the use of

‘whether you want to amend also subsections…’ which implies the need for further confirmation on the amendment proposed by the MP.

The Chairperson also made the MPs accountable for their proposals through interruptions by vindicating his interruptions. In extract 1, the Chairperson rationalized his interruptions by giving a reminder or recall to previous statements by saying ‘because we already have an amendment to sub-clause (b) introduced by the mover…’ Meanwhile, in extract 2, he vindicated his action stronger by imposing his idea by stressing that ‘I think is have to’. In both cases, the Chairperson indirectly justified his interruptions. In extract 1, he explained his uncertainties of the proposals by mentioning or reminding the MPs that the amendment proposed had been proposed earlier by another MP. The justification for this interruption appears indirect by the use of the word ‘because’ as a conjunction in the middle of a sentence.

It shows the need to confirm uncertainties derived from the proposal of the MP. The Chairperson also used this conjunction to vindicate his interruptions as being necessary by justifying the uncertainties and the need for further confirmation. In extract 2, the reference to action was made by first introducing the uncertainty and later imposing ideas to it. The combination of ‘I think’ and ‘you have to’ indirectly assessed the MP’s previous actions on his proposals as being insufficient, indicating the need for further confirmation. Like extract 1, the reference to uncertainties appears indirect. The uncertainties were introduced by saying ‘I am not quite sure whether…’ which also appears indirect.

In the above extracts, the Chairperson attempted to make the MPs accountable by requesting further justification on the uncertainties in the debate. The Chairperson also challenged the MP to be accountable for his words. The Chairperson accomplished this by making his interruptions appeared factual rather than subjective by vindicating his actions using the facts or statements made by the MP. Furthermore, the Chairperson’s attempt to impose his ideas or suggestions to take action appears indirect by formulating the idea to amend subsection 1 and subsection 2 as uncertainties (rather an assertion), requesting for justification or further clarification on points mentioned by the MP.

106

Overall, in the above extracts, the Chairperson made his interruptions as convincing and reliable, thus making the MPs accountable for their speeches. In doing so, the Chairperson also protected himself from arguing with the MPs because of his interruptions by referring to the statements made by the MPs or previous speakers. Therefore, the Chairperson’s interruptions in the above cases were multi-purpose: to make the MPs accountable, to make clear the uncertainties during the debates, and to impose his ideas or suggestions on the discussion.