Mr. Speaker: I had a very fruitful discussion with the Leaders of the Government side and the Opposition during the recess for Magrib Prayer and the BNP MPs have agreed to join the session tomorrow morning.

The rest of today's programme will be included in the tomorrow's programme and the session is adjourned till 4 pm tomorrow, July 23.

[1st session of the Seventh Parliament, July 22.1996.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon'ble Members, I have to say something. You will be given the Floor after that, "As per the Rule, when the Speaker stands up, everybody has to remain seated. You please sit down. I am sure you are aware of the letter to the Editors and other news and views being published in the newspapers and also television commentaries on the proceedings of the Parliament. Common people are also watching all these TV reports and reading newspapers. Using fifty languages against each other, making shouts, throwing files and impolite body movements during the unscheduled debates are all against the parliamentary practices. This discussion sometimes reflects personal aspersion having no national interest involved in it resulting in the damage of the image and status of the Parliament. Therefore, we would request you to avoid the creation of such a situation. Since the entire nation is watching us, we must behave properly in order to maintain the dignity of the House and to present your views in a nice way. Even a strong word can be uttered in a soft way. I want the nation to consider us all as educated, cultured, decent and honoured people. Today I have heard the word "uncivil" in the House which was not expected and I must expunge such words from the proceedings.

Thank you Hon'ble Members for your corporation. Let us proceed. Hon'ble Leader of the Opposition, you have very often questioned my neutrality on many occasions unnecessarily but I have not replied. The three institutions, Leader of the House, Speaker and the Leader of the Opposition are very essential for successful operation of parliamentary democracy and there must be patience, cordiality and creativeness amongst these institutions. Therefore, I seek your sincere co-operation for the sake of this august Parliament, successful operation of parliamentary democracy and for the greater welfare of the country.

[First session of the Seventh Parliament, August 5, 1996]

Mr. Speaker: I have come to know that few minutes back while Hon'ble Member Mr. Abu Yousuf Khalilur Rahman was speaking another Member Major Akteruzzaman said something over the former's microphone. He is said to have used impolite word and if it is, he has created a bad precedence. I shall examine the matter. I would request the newspapers not to print the word he used. After examining the matter, I would let the Parliament know and the Parliament will do the needful.

[First session of the Seventh Parliament, August 25, 1996]

Hon'ble Members, I gave a decision on 18-8-96 of the previous session regarding giving 30 minutes time to the Members, two minutes each for speaking on matters of public interest. On the first working day of the present session, nine Hon'ble Members got the chance to speak. Others who did not get the chance to speak earlier will be allowed to speak from today and continue up to the closing of the present session provided notice is given. I hope this decision will allow others to speak on matters of public interest under the relevant Rule.

[Second session of the Seventh Parliament, November 4, 1996]

Khandaker Delwar Hossain (Chief Whip of the Opposition): Thank you Hon'ble Speaker. Hon'ble Minister for Power and Mineral Resources has placed the Bill with your permission and on voting it was passed. We abstained but you mentioned that it was passed unanimously. Hon'ble Speaker I think you have made the declaration against the Rule. Since there are three words, "Yes" "No" and "Abstention" and I would request you to drop the word unanimously and this is my point of order now.

Mr. Speaker: Hon'ble Whip of the Opposition. I shall give a Ruling on this later.

While the voting process was on, in reply to my asking in favour of the Bill the "Yes" sound was very loud and there was no sound against the Bill and naturally I assumed the consent of all. You should have said that you were absent.

Sheikh Hasina (Leader of the House): Hon'ble Speaker, it is not a matter of Ruling rather of practice. When we were in the Opposition the same practice used to be followed. This is a convention and it has always been followed. Taking part in the voting, they could say "no" and in that case the question of unanimous did not arise.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you Leader, of the House. I shall give a decision on the basis of convention and Rule. But when there was the call for response of the "No" supports, there was no sound. Before I give a Ruling on this, I will seek the cooperation of my predecessor Mr. Sheikh Razzak Ali.

Shaikh Razzak Ali (Khulna): Thank you Hon'ble Speaker. I am in agreement with you and we also followed the same convention in the Fifth Parliament. When there is no sound from the Opposition in reply the Speakers asking, it is assumed that they are abstaining and therefore, it is approved unanimously. And this is the practice.

Mr. Speaker: Hon'ble Chief Whip of the Opposition, I am giving this Ruling after full agreement with my predecessor Shaikh Razzak Ali.

[Third session of the Seventh Parliament, January 22, 1997]

Mr. Speaker: Hon'ble Members, Hon'ble Member Shaikh Razzak Ali (Khulna-2) has raised a point of order on the formation of a Committee under Rule 2(1) (ga) of the Rules of Procedure by the Speaker saying that the Committee has not been properly formed. He also raised a question as to how Bangabir Kader Siddiqui would perform the responsibility of maintaining the security of the Members or the Parliament building. However, as the session of January 20 when the point of order was raised was presided over by the Deputy Speaker, the Speaker informed the House that a Ruling would be given later. We also informed the House that the six-member Committee formed under the Leadership of Bangabir Kader Siddiqui on December 24 was not a Committee formed under the Rules of Procedure rather it was an administrative Committee.

The National Parliament Secretariat Act 1994 has provided all the administrative powers with the Speaker and I have formed that Committee for preparing recommendations on several subjects. Therefore, formation of this Committee has no relationship with the Committees formed under the Rules of Procedure. In this connection let me quote from Article 5 of the National Assembly Secretariat Act 1994:

(5) Control of Parliament Secretariat.

(1) The administrative control of the Parliament Secretarial shall be with the Speaker.

(2) The Speaker will himself perform this job or empower relevant officials to do it as per Rule.

I had the impression that, since no Rule has been framed following the National Parliament Secretariat Act, I did not consider it wise to form an official level Committee. On the other hand, I have formed a Committee with six MPs and the recommendations of this Committee will be totally advisory and this Committee or its Chairman has not been given any administrative power.

The comment of Hon'ble Member Shaikh Razzak Ali about Bangabir Kader Siddiqui Bir Uttam is irrelevant here. Any authority having administrative power can take the help of any Committee and that is the interest power of that authority as a Committee was formed only with MPs for resolving the problem of the Hill Tracts and such a Committee still exists. Formation of such a Committee in no way violated the Rules of Procedure or any Rule. So I am sorry that the point of order of Hon'ble Member Shaikh Razzak Ali could not be accepted.

[Third session of the Seventh Parliament, January 22, 1997]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon'ble Members, I have come to know everything and I am giving my Ruling after which nobody can have anything to say. Hon'ble Members, a point of order has been raised under Article 73(a) of the Constitution. Let me explain. The Cabinet Division through a notification issued on January 16, 1997 the State Minister Dr. Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir has been given the responsibilities of four Ministries: Planning Ministry, President Secretariat, Prime Minister's Secretariat and Cabinet Division and he has not given any reply beyond these Ministries. So, the question of violation of the Constitution does not arise and whatever he has replied he has done it as per the Rules of Procedure. As I have told you earlier that I have a copy of the letter empowering him responsibilities of four Ministries / Division. He has not gone beyond that and so the question of violation of the Constitution does not arise.

[Third session of the Seventh Parliament, January 26, 1997]

Mr. Speaker: Hon'ble Members today I have two point of orders. Please allow me to speak. Its a very important speech. Our Constitution has granted the status of the Father of the Nation to Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the Article under which this status was given has never been changed. Therefore, giving aspersion to the Father of the Nation is directly or indirectly tantamount to dishonoring the Constitution. So I would request you all to show proper respect in your words and deeds to the Father of the Nation as it is Constitutionally recognised. I want to tell you another aspect today. Many of you have raised a question about my neutrality. You must know that the Ruling of the Speaker in the Parliament is the final and you must follow the norms and practices of parliamentary democracy. The Rules of Procedures say it is the right of the Speaker to interpret the constitutional rules so for as matters in relating to the House concerned. And no one including the Government can enter into any argument of controversy with the Speaker over such interpretation. The Speaker's Ruling as already stated can not be questioned except on a substantive motion. A Member who protests against this Ruling of the Speaker commits contempt of the House and the Speaker.

As I have already told you that protection of the Constitution is my solemn duty and I have taken the oath to protect the Constitution. Bangabandhu has been Constitutionally established as the Father of the Nation. Can you show me any law by which the Constitutional provision declaring Bangabandhu as the Father of the Nation has been changed? So, as long as the peoples representatives will keep him in that position, the Bengali Nation will honour Bangabandhu as the Father of the Nation forever.

[Third session of the Seventh Parliament, February 18, 1997]

(54) Proposal of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to review the already given Ruling.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Hon'ble Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Hon'ble Members, I am sure you all will agree with me that the Ruling I gave yesterday cannot be reviewed now and I am strict by that Rule. People expect many things from their representatives and they expect good behaviour from them. In this House our main purpose is to work for the welfare of the people and if we deviate from that path and instead involve in mudslinging to each other, that will bring disaster for the whole nation. Unfortunately few Members very often take resort in this unreasonable path and use unparliamentary words addressing the Speaker. Something happened yesterday when few Members used fifty and discourteous languages. I humbly request you to behave properly in the future.

Hon'ble Members, the Speaker does not mean personally Mr. Humayun Rashid Chowdhury. The Speaker is the symbol of national unity and the source of his existence and power is this House the Members of this House.

I firmly declare that the Speaker is a part and parcel of this House and the Speaker is elected from amongst you on the first day of the first session of this House. He is the representative of the 330 MPs and the 12 crore people of this country. Therefore, I think giving aspiration to the Speaker is tantamount to dishonoring the whole nation. I want to remind you all that this is not the place for quarreling rather this is the examination hall for the politicians. The entire people of the country and the world look at us and we must product the dignity of the House and be always careful to enhance the image of the House. Those who have voted us and sent us here must take us as educated, respectful, Courteous and dignified.

Hon'ble Members I must point out another important aspect. There was a time when we could confine our utterings within ourselves and many undesirable utterings could be killed. But now with the improvement of the electronic media our words go to the people outside the House instantaneously. Therefore, all of you must be careful before uttering a word so that the direct telecast of the proceedings does not destroy the image of the House and create a feeling of disrespect about you. So I once again request you all to have neutral respect for each other and to maintain the dignity of the House through your behaviour and Courtesy.

[Third session of the Seventh Parliament, February 19, 1997]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: While agreeing with the Hon'ble Law Minister, I want to say the no matter now under judicial process can be discussed in the House. Hon'ble Leader of the Opposition, if I allow you again to speak, the Leader of the House might ask for the Floor again and the process will continue. There will be no end to it. The endless debate will continue. I do not find any reason to allow anybody after the statement of the Leader of the House.

[Fourth session of the Seventh Parliament, May 11, 1997]

Mr. Speaker: Hon'ble Members, while presiding over the session on 17.6.97, I noticed that the Hon'ble Members of the Opposition walked out but came back to the House after sometime. After coming back, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised a point of order saying that by allowing State Minister for Planning to take part in the budget discussion, the constitutional provision 73(a) (1) has been violated.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition while raising the point of order especially mentioned the oath of the Deputy Speaker that he will protect, support and ensure security of the Constitution. At this stage the Hon'ble Member of the Treasury Bench Mr. Suranjit Sen Gupta reputed the point of order raised by the Opposition saying that the Constitutional provision 73(a) allows the non-MP Ministers, State Ministers and Deputy Ministers to take part in the discussion only on matters of his Ministry. He said that the most part of the development budget was related to annual development planning and as such related to Planning Ministry and therefore, the State Minister for planning in his statement remained confined to the subject of his Ministry as per Constitutional provision. He firmly stated that the point of order raised by the Deputy Leader of the House was not based on facts. I assured the House that I shall inform the House my decision after through examination of the relevant clause.

Hon'ble Members, we have taken the oath for protection, support and maintaining security of the Constitution on the Prime Minister and others Ministers, State Ministers and Deputy Ministers have also done it. On examining the proceedings of June 17 I find that both the Deputy Speaker and the State Minister remained aware of their oath and their constitutional obligation. The State Minister opened his statement saying "Today I shall confine my statement basically on Supplementary Budget especially related to the Development Programme or Annual Development Programme which falls within the preview of the Planning Ministry." After that the Deputy Speaker said, "Hon'ble Minister, please do not touch Revenue Budget in your discussion."

Hon'ble Members, the Hon'ble President has prepared the Rules of Business under clause 55 of the Constitution and the works of the Planning Ministry have been clearly described at page 33 of the Rules of Business, 1996 in which the five year plan and the Annual Development Programme have been allocated to Planning Ministry. A major part of our budget is connected with the Annual Development Programme and the Development Programme is generally implemented through the Budget and there should not be any doubt or ambiguity about it. Therefore I have come to the decision that on the discussion on supplementary budget on June 17, 1997, the participation of the State Minister for Planning did not violate the constitutional provision of 73(a)

[Fifth session of the Seventh Parliament, June 6, 1997]

Mr. Speaker: Now I am giving my Ruling on the point of order on special Committees raised by Mr. Abdul Mannan. Hon'ble Members, a similar point of order was raised earlier and a Ruling was given on the formation of special Committee. You know that special Committees are formed for a special purpose. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the House in her proposals on other matters also referred to the formation of special Committees. Until the standing Committees are formed the Bills to be introduced will go to this Committee at the time of second reading, that is this special Committee will last until the formation of the special Committees and with the formation of the standing Committees. This Committee will not be in existence. I hope the Parliament will soon be able to form other standing Committees. Therefore, the point of order raised by Mr. Abdul Mannan regarding the formation of special Committee is rejected.

[Fifth session of the Seventh Parliament, July 7, 1997]

Mr. Speaker: Hon'ble Members, before I switch over to the last item of the day, I shall inform my decision to the House on the point of order raised by Hon'ble Member Mr. Shamsul Alam Pramanik on the concluding day of the last session. Then the point of order of Prof. Panna Kaiser and that of Hazi Mohammad Selim would come up for discussion.

Hon'ble Members you must be aware that on the last day of the budget session the MP elect from Noagaon-4 Mr. Shamsul Alam Pramanik raised a point of order, saying that "the Hon'ble Finance Minister in his Budget Speech mentioned that at this critical juncture of discharging the responsibility of running the Government, which violated the clause 2 and 3^rd Schedule of Article 148 of the Constitution. The MP in his point of order mentioned that the President’s responsibility is to run State affairs while the Prime Minister is responsible for running the Government. He also pointed out inconsistency between his speech and its English translation. However, I told you that the point of order raised by the Hon'ble Member will be decided in the next session after examining the relevant aspects of the subject.

Hon'ble Members, according to the accepted definition of Political Science the state is composed of four elements of which Government is one. In the parliamentary system of Government the Party having the support of the majority forms the Government and control and manage the state affairs in the name of the President. The Government presents the statement of income and expenditure in the Parliament every year under Article 87 of the Constitution which is generally known on Budget under Rule 111(1) of the Rules of Procedure. The Finance Minister presents the Budget on behalf of the Government and the statement he makes during the time of presenting the Budget cannot in any way be formed as his own. The thinking of the Government is reflected through his statement in the Parliament. Therefore when the Finance Minister presents the Budget on behalf of the Government his statement should be taken as the statement of the Government especially on discharging the responsibilities of the Government. If there is any inconsistency on our Constitution, Rules of Business and the law passed by the Parliament regarding English and Bengali versions, the Bengali version should stand in all cases. In this case by using the word Government instead of state the Finance Minister has further clarified the matter.

Therefore, the point of order raised by Mr. Shamsul Alam Pramanik cannot be accepted under Rule 301 (2) of the Rules of Procedure. But we should all be careful about coming words in presenting a formal address and at the same time I must thank Mr. Pramanik for raising a very important point of order.

[Sixth session of the Seventh Parliament, August 30, 1997]

Mr. Speaker: You all know that a confusion was created yesterday regarding asking questions during Prime Minister’s question hour. At one state it was told that in the House of Commons only Opposition Members are allowed during the Prime Minister’s question hour. I contacted the House of Commons through interest for information and my question to them was as follows: During Prime Minister's question hour including supplementary question asked only by Members of the Opposition or is it the prerogative of all Members who can draw the attention of the Chair?

The reply sent from the House of Commons is as follows: Thank you for your inquiry. Members of all political Parties including the Government Party, are permitted to ask questions to the Prime Minister during question time. I hope this helps.

The practices regarding asking questions and supplementary questions followed in the House of Commons are given below:

In the House, when called, Members ask their question by standing up and stating the question number. After the Minister answers, the Member is called to ask one question. Supplementaries must relate to the subject of the original question. The Speaker calls the supplementaries from alternate side of the House.

Another question was raised in the yesterday's session that the Opposition was not given any opportunity for asking supplementary questions which was not correct as it appeared from the following facts:

On 24-3-98 six questions were enlisted for the Prime Minister’s question hour of which first three that is now 16, 17 and 18 were raised in the Parliament. The first question was raised by Mr. Dhirendra Nath Saha and after one supplementary by him, I allowed two more supplementary questions - one by Syed Mehadi Hasan Rumi (Kustia-4) and the other by Abdul Latif Mirza (Sirajgonj-4). The second question was put by Mr. Sultan Mohammad Mansur, Mr. Kazi Keramat Ali was absent and after one supplementary question two more supplementary questions were allowed - one by Mr. Jafrul Islam Chowdhury (Chittagong-15) and the other by Mr. Abdul Latif Biswas (Sirajgonj-5). The third question was asked by Mr. Nurul Islam Nahid and after one supplementary question, another one was allowed and that was by Mr. Shahidul Islam (Jhenaida-3).

Thus it is found that out of five supplementary questions, three were from the main Opposition out the two from the Treasury Bench, although an impression was created during the discussion that the Opposition Members were not given enough time.

In this connection a news of the Daily Star has been quoted saying that only BNP MP Mr. Shahidul Islam was given on opportunity for asking question. Now you can deduct from the above facts the factual position of the report. Since this paper is circulated throughout the world through Internet. I draw your attention to the factual position of their report.

Thank you all.

[Eighth session of the Seventh Parliament, March 25, 1998]

Mr. Speaker: Hon'ble Members, the unruly and unparliamentary behavior of few Hon'ble Members before the Magrib Prayer on April 15, 1998 created such a situation in the Parliament that I promised to inform the House my decision about the matter. That incident has created a bad instance in our parliamentary history and substantially lowered the image of our Parliament. So I have decided to take a decision after consulting with the Leaders of all the Parties. Since all the Parties are represented in the Business Committee for their advice, so I am going to send it to the Business Advisory Committee hoping that I will get everybody's cooperation.

[Eight session of the Seventh Parliament, April 19, 1998]

Mr. Speaker: Hon'ble Members, Hon'ble Member Mr. Hafizuddin Ahmed (Bhola-4) Bir Bikram raised a point of order on 8-3-98 saying that floor crossing was not allowed in our Constitution. But two BNP MPs joined the Awami League Cabinet last month which according to him, violated the Constitution. On the same day Mr. K.M. Obaidur Rahman (Faridpur-2) raised another point of order that the Constitution had been violated due to taking oath as Ministers by Mr. Hasibur Rahman Swapan and Dr. Alauddin and they have lost their Membership for crossing the floor under Article 70 of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Members have asked for my decision. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition Mr. A.Q.M. Badrudoza Chowdhury and the Chief Whip of the Opposition in two separate letters have demanded for declaring the seats of these two Members vacant. They have mentioned that both of them were elected as the nominees of BNP and, as Members of BNP Parliamentary Party it was known to them that BNP was not a part of Government. Still they took oath as State Minister and Deputy Minister violating Party discipline and ignoring the parliamentary norms and practices which will be treated as resignation from their own Party under Article 70(1) of the Constitution. Their letters have also mentioned that the seats of Hon'ble Members Dr. Alauddin and Mr. Hasibur Rahman Swapan have become vacant under Article 67(1)(e) of the Constitution as such it should be published in the Gazette that their seats have become vacant.

"A Member of Parliament shall vacate his seat -in the circumstances specified in Article 70."

In this connection we must analyse Article 70 of the Constitution which says, "A person elected as a Member of Parliament at an election at which he was nominated as a candidate by a political Party shall vacate his seat if he resigns from that Party or votes in Parliament against that Party.

Explanation- If a Member of Parliament-

(a) being present in Parliament abstains from voting, or

(b) absents himself from any sitting of Parliament.

ignoring the direction of the Party which nominated him at the election as a candidate not to do so, he shall be deemed to have voted against that Party."

Whether the Hon'ble Members Mr. Hasibur Rahman Swapan and Dr. Mohammad Alauddin have resigned from the Party from where they have been elected or whether they have voted against that Party has not been mentioned in the letters nor these are available with me. Therefore it clearly appears to me by taking oath as State Minister and Deputy Minister respectively Dr Alauddin and Mr. Hasibur Rahman have not violated Article 70(1) of the Constitution. In this connection Article 66(4) of the Constitution may be taken into consideration which says "A person shall be disqualified for election as, or for being, a Member of Parliament who-

a) is declared by a competent Court to be of unsound mind;

b) is an undischarged insolvent;

c) acquires the citizenship of, or affirms or acknowledges allegiance to a foreign State;

d) has been on conviction for a criminal offence involving moral turpitude, sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than two years, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release."

Thus it appears clearly that the cases of Dr. Alauddin and Mr. Hasibur Rahman do not fall in this category of disqualification. Since taking oath, Dr. Alauddin and Mr. Hasibur Rahman as State Minister and Deputy Minister respectively have not violated Article 70(1) of the Constitution and since neither of these two Members have become disqualified to become a Member or to remain as a Member, the Article 66(4) of the Constitution does not apply here.

It may be mentioned here that if any Member became disqualified under Article 66(2) of the Constitution or if the Article 70(1) of the Constitution is violated, the matter can be treated as dispute and only in such a case it will have to be referred to the Election Commission for resolving the issue and only in such a situation, "The Members of Parliament Determination of Dispute Act", 1980 (Act of 1981) will be effective under Article 66(5) of the Constitution and in other situation. Since the present cases of Hon'ble Members Dr. Alauddin and Hasibur Rahman Swapan do not fall within the purview of Article 66(2) nor Article 70(1) of the Constitution, there is no scope to treat their cases as disputed and thus to sent it to the Election Commission.

The Rule 178(4) of the Rules of Procedure says, "If the seat of a Member becomes vacant the Secretary shall cause a notification to that effect to be published in the Gazette and forward a copy of the notification to the Member concerned and also to the Election Commission for taking steps to fill the vacancy thus caused."

Thus since the seats of Hon'ble Members Dr. Alauddin and Mr. Hasibur Rahman Swapan have not become vacant there is no scope to declare these seats vacant and publish this in the Gazette notification. Under these circumstances I am sorry for not being able to accept the point of order as raised by Hon'ble Member Mr. Hafiz Uddin Ahmed Bir Bikram and Hon'ble Member Mr. K.M. Obaidur Rahman.

(The above Ruling was given in reply to two separate point of orders by Hon'ble Member Hafiz Uddin Ahmed and Hon'ble Member K.M. Obaidur Rahman. Later the Appeal Division of the Bangladesh Supreme Court gave a different Judgment in 1999)

[Eighth session of the Seventh Parliament, April 21, 1998]

Mr. Speaker : Hon'ble Members , Speaker's solemn duty is to protect the Constitution of the country and to run the Parliament as per the Rules of Procedure and I have taken oath under Article 148 of the Constitution to perform this assigned job with honesty and dedication. I have been meticulously trying to follow the Rules of Procedure for running the Parliament. Many undesirable debates take place on the issue of raising point of order and sometimes the relevant Rules relating to the raising of points of order are misinterpreted. Newspapers also report on point of order and this is why there is scope for confusion about the issue of point of order. So I have a responsibility to clarify the matter and that is why I am going to quote Rule 301 and Rule 302 of the Rules of Procedure before I allow anybody to raise any point of order.

Rule 301(1): "A point of order shall relate to the interpretation or enforcement of these Rules or such Articles of the Constitution to regulate the business of the House and shall raise a question which is within the cognizance of the Speaker.

(2) A point of order may be raised in relation to the business before the House at the moment:

Provided that the Speaker may permit a Member to raise a point of order during the interval between the termination of one item of business and the commencement of another if it relates to maintenance of order in, or arrangement of business before, the House.

(3) Subject to conditions referred to in Sub-Rules (1) and (2), a Member may formulate a point of order and the Speaker shall decide whether the point raised is a point of order and if so give his decision thereon, which shall be final.

(4) No debate shall be allowed on a point of order, but the Speaker may, if he thinks fit, hear Members before giving his decision.

(5) A point of order is not a point of privilege.

(6) A Member shall not raise a point of order-

(a) to ask for information; or

(b) to explain his position; or

(c) when a question on any motion is being put to the House; or

(d) which may be hypothetical; or

(e) that Division Bells did not ring or were not heard."

Hon'ble Members when the Speaker speaks, it is desirable not to interrupt him and that is the practice throughout the world. It may be mentioned here that Rule 300 of the Rules of Procedure allows a Minister to issue a statement but the practice is to send a written request to the Speaker before issuing the statement and this allows the Speaker to remain informed about the willingness of the Minister. We have not yet deviated from this practice so far. I hope henceforth all the Hon'ble Members willing to raise a point of order will follow this practice and I will request the newspapers to publish the text of this Ruling in their respective paper for clarification of all confusions, and relevant copies will be supplied to the newsmen who are covering the proceedings of the Parliament.

[Eighth session of the Seventh Parliament, April 28, 1998]

Mr. Speaker: Hon'ble Members no call attention notices have been included in today’s programme. I am postponing my decisions on the notices received under Rule 71, and Rule 71(a) will not be applicable on the pending notices. Hon'ble Members you are well aware that few Hon'ble Members indulged into unruly activities and created a bad precedence in the history of our Parliament before the recess of the Magrib Prayer on April 15, 1998. They have violated all the parliamentary norms and practices created severe undisciplined situations, disturbed the activities of the House and thus destroyed the image of the House and all its Members. At one stage they attempted to attack the Speaker, broke down the TV Camera and threw the broken pieces and other items at the Parliament Officials. The involved Hon'ble Members were identified immediately after the incident and I drew your attention to the incident. In my decision on that I mentioned that there is a provision for specific punishment against the Members for unruly behaviour under Rules 15 and 16 of the Rules of Procedure and I referred the matter to the Business Advisory Committee for taking a decision on the incident on April 19. The matter was discussed in the Business Advisory Committee where as the Chairman I placed the following opinion, "Since the parliamentary practices have not yet been fully developed in our country, since the path to parliamentary democracy is not yet fully clear and also for the sake of furthering the existing democratic processes and institutionalizing parliamentary democracy, taking action against the Hon'ble Members who were involved in the unruly behaviour will be desirable."

After that the Committee Members came to the decision that the involved Members would be warned and accordingly those Members who were directly involved in the incident are hereby warned not to indulge into such activities in future.

[Eighth session of the Seventh Parliament, May 12, 1998.

Mr. Speaker: Hon'ble Members, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has demanded my Ruling regarding joining of Parliament session by BNP MPs Mr. K.M. Obaidur Rahman and Mr. Alamgir Kabir as under trial accused. Moreover, the applications of the under trial accused MPs have also reached me by this time.

I am giving my Ruling. Hon'ble Member Mr. K.M. Obaidur Rahman is now in jail as accused of a heinous killing case in which charge-sheet has already been submitted. Mr. Alamgir Kabir has been arrested as an accused of author case. I have already studied all the relevant Rules, regulations Constitutional provisions and the Rules of Procedure regarding the privileges of the Hon'ble Members of the Parliament. I have also contacted other Parliaments and the reply of the House of Commons is given below.

"In reply to your fax address to Robert Wilson, Members can be arrested on criminal charges and detained, and after trial, imprisoned. The only way in which Members are treated differently from others is that the House must be informed of their arrest or imprisonment".

May's Parliamentary Practice states, "Although normally making an oral statement, the Speaker has notified the House of the arrest or imprisonment of a Member by laying a copy of the letter on the Table. A Member who is held in custody on a criminal charge has no right to be released in order to participate in the proceedings of the House. The privilege of freedom from arrest has never been allowed to interfere with the administration of criminal justice and that in all cases in which Members of either House are arrested on criminal charges, the House must be informed of the cause for which they are detained from their service in Parliament. It is possible that Member in custody could be required to attend a sitting of the House if the House itself wished to conduct disciplinary proceedings against him. Precedence for the detention of serving Members of Parliament include the arrest of William James Owen on 15^th January 1970, that of Jeremy Thorpe on 4^th August 1978 and, more recently, the conviction of Terence Fields on 11^th July 1991."

Hon'ble Members, the Constitution of the country, the existing Rules, regulations or the Rules of Procedure have not given me any authority to issue any directive to the executive authority or judiciary regarding joining of the Parliament session by an MP who is an under trial accused of a criminal case and who is also in jail. For this reason the matter is beyond my jurisdiction.

[Eleventh session of the Seventh Parliament, November 5, 1998]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon'ble Members, my opinion regarding the proposals brought under Rule 147 is that the notice has been duly served to all the Members. Secondly the subject has been confined to only one. Therefore, the point of order raised by the Hon'ble Deputy Leader of the Opposition can not be accepted.

[Twelfth session of the Seventh Parliament, March 3, 1999]

Mr. Speaker: Hon'ble Members, I told in the yesterday's session that if the Government Party is allowed to speak on personal explanation under Rule 274 of the Rules of Procedure, the same facilities will also be given to the Opposition Members. But I have examined the proceedings of 21-6-99 and the Hon'ble Chief Whip did not make any presentation on that day’s session under Rule 274 of the Rules of Procedure. I have also examined the statement of the Hon'ble Deputy Speaker who presided at that session. He said, "Hon'ble Members, I conduct the House basically with the cooperation of the Chief Whip from this side and the Whip of the Opposition from that side and I give chances to both of them". On that day the Chief Whip of the Opposition was given the floor and he also spoke.

You all know that the Rule 274 of the Rules of Procedure says, "A Member may, with the permission of the Speaker make a personal explanation although there is no question before the House, but in this case no debatable matter may be brought forward and no debate shall arise."

Since the Deputy Speaker resolved the issue in that session by allowing both the Chief Whips to speak, I don't think it is desirable to open the debate again.

[Thirteenth session of the Seventh Parliament, June 23, 1999]

Mr. Speaker: Hon’ble Members, with reference to Hon'ble Member Mr. Shaikh Razzak Ali's statement and with due honour to you all I want to speak a few words. We all want to institutionalize parliamentary democracy in Bangladesh and we cannot achieve that without making the National Parliament effective and lively. I want your full cooperation in properly using our language and behaving nicely. Everybody should be careful so that our language and conduct do not make the situation polluted. The Members of the Parliament should not create such a situation through their words and conduct that common people loose faith and respect in the Parliamentary form or Government or generally in politicians. We all must be very careful about that. In this connection I would like to remind you that the violation of the Rules to be followed by the MPs as mentioned in the Rule 28 of the Rules of Procedure is tantamount to the disrespect of the Rules of Procedure.

I am very sorry to point of out that occasionally Hon'ble Members use very filthy and muddy language in the House and make unjust attacks to each other resulting in a volatile situation. It may be mentioned here hat my father was a Member of the Central Legislative Assembly in Delhi and my mother was a Member of the Pakistan National Assembly and that enabled me to have personal contact with many famous Parliamentarians. I have had also the chance to observe the proceedings of the Parliaments in many countries. I was the President of the UN General Assembly. But unfortunately I have never heard or observed the use of such a muddy language anywhere in the world as it is being done recently in our Parliament. We all should be very careful so that such use of filthy language in the Parliament does not lead us to such a situation where the people will lose faith in their representatives or politicians. Therefore, I would request all the Hon'ble Members to avoid use of attacking and muddy language in their statements for the sake of maintaining the dignity of the Parliament. Otherwise, we will be forced to stop the statement of those who would be using unparliamentary language using the Rule 270 (6) of the Rules of Procedure.

[Thirteenth session of the Seventh Parliament, June 24, 1999]

I hope all the Hon'ble Members will contribute their share in this session for the greater interest of the country. Now I am keeping you informed under Rule 178(3) of the Rules of Procedure that after judgment of the Election Commission on 11-10-99 the seats of Mr. Hasibur Rahman Swapan elected from 67 Sirajgonj-7 constituency and Dr. Alauddin elected from 56 Rajshahi-5 constituency have became vacant from the date of delivering the Judgment.

[Fifteenth session of the Seventh Parliament, November 1, 1999]