[NSG Senate] Senate Chamber: Do We Have Work?

[Britanno 2]

"Mr Speaker, if the Social Liberal Party wants to feel good and be all idealistic about these matters, then that's up to them. The rest of us, however, have a duty to act based on facts and based on reality. Will speaking out against China's internal affairs change anything in China? No, of course not. What it will do, however, is cause a response from China in terms of trade and investment, which will hurt hardworking Elizians at home. Mr Speaker, I have to question what the Social Liberal Party's priorities are, as it seems that they'd prefer to help nobody in China whilst hurting people here, as opposed to helping people here and recognising that we don't have any power over how China runs its country."

[Nariterrr]

"Mr Speaker, if the Social Liberal Party wants to feel good and be all idealistic about these matters, then that's up to them. The rest of us, however, have a duty to act based on facts and based on reality. Will speaking out against China's internal affairs change anything in China? No, of course not. What it will do, however, is cause a response from China in terms of trade and investment, which will hurt hardworking Elizians at home. Mr Speaker, I have to question what the Social Liberal Party's priorities are, as it seems that they'd prefer to help nobody in China whilst hurting people here, as opposed to helping people here and recognising that we don't have any power over how China runs its country."

"But we do have power over how it mingles illegally with our territorial waters and that of the international community."

[Belmaria]

"Mr Speaker, if the Social Liberal Party wants to feel good and be all idealistic about these matters, then that's up to them. The rest of us, however, have a duty to act based on facts and based on reality. Will speaking out against China's internal affairs change anything in China? No, of course not. What it will do, however, is cause a response from China in terms of trade and investment, which will hurt hardworking Elizians at home. Mr Speaker, I have to question what the Social Liberal Party's priorities are, as it seems that they'd prefer to help nobody in China whilst hurting people here, as opposed to helping people here and recognising that we don't have any power over how China runs its country."

Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. member wishes to be short-sighted, that's his prerogative. The SLP, however, supports international political progress, which apparently certain members of the Labour party do not.

[West Verrica]

post removed.

[Libertine States of America]

*Steve Minter watches with a bowl of popcorn in his hand*

[Filimons]

“It is rather amusing that my honourable colleagues here assembled, ignoring the Federation’s historical refusal to recognise the Peking authorities, have nevertheless offered the People’s Republic a delightful, unimpeded diplomatic victory; without an act of Parliament, or even a note verbale, these plenipotentiary representatives have unwittingly served to recognise the PRC as the legitimate Chinese government. In this debate, we have heard ‘China’, ‘China’ and, once again, ‘China’, but not once has Taiwan ― or, per our law, the Republic of China ― been mentioned. Congratulations, gentlemen; whilst you sought to deride and scorn her, China has already emerged victorious. Not one of her ministers has addressed us; not once has the word ‘Elizia’ been uttered by a Peking official, but we, in an absurd theatre of the self-delusion proper to the fanciful ‘new guard’ of nascent democracies and banana republics, have made fools of ourselves.

“I would advise my colleagues to abstain from commenting on the affairs of other states, for intromission can only serve to our detriment. We are not a powerful nation; indeed, we are a very poor and weak one. As such, we ought to fixate our eyes on the improvement and development of this country, not animadversion against particularly vigorous countries. One can find the actions of foreign powers distasteful or reprehensible, but the economic importance of the People’s Republic of China ― much like that, for instance, of Australia, Germany or the United States ― cannot be dismissed. ‘What harm does it cost?’, some minds, still submerged in a sea of naïveté, ask. Misery. We’ve nothing to gain and much to lose from this, gentlemen.”

[Tumbra]

Because it's more complex than you lead people to believe. China already has established trade with our nation, and we are geographically close to China. They won't want to risk war with us, and potentially foreign involvement from the west in said war, over a symbolic condemnation that does nothing more than open diplomatic channels for our governments to negotiate.

"Is the honourable member misleading the House? He has made a statement which is extremely untrue and quite false, as proven by the Hon. [Atlantica]. He must withdraw the statement on Chinese-Elizian trade, or lack thereof, or face contempt of Parliament for misleading it."

"I am very displeased with the conduct of the SLP in this house. They have shouted at other Members, repeatedly tried to remove this Government from power, and have honestly been a nusiance in this House, only serving to slow down the legislative process and disturbing good debate. One of them even called me corrupt recently here - not in here, but somewhere else in Parliament where he was lucky enough to catch me in a good mood. They might have not called me corrupt directly, but I know a thinly veiled insult when I see one - furthermore, his comments have cast aspersions on the the office of the Speaker."

"This has gone too far, and as far as I can see almost all of the chaos in this House has been incited by the SLP making some controversial statements and motions. As such, I will remove them from this house until the end of this week's President's Questions. Until they have proven that they can behave in this Chamber, I will also be removing their two-question allotment at every session of President's Questions until further notice."

OOC: If the admins think this punishment is too harsh, do TG me and I will change it.

[Maklohi Vai]

*admin hat on*

It's an IC decision, so I'll let it stand for the moment. I'll talk with the others.

[Ainin]

John Chiu, Leader of the Chinese Interests Party

---

Mr. Speaker, honourable members, fellow Elizians,

It's time to wake up and smell the coffee. The horrors of the Congress regime, our sovereign default and our inability to fulfill our international obligations have severely harmed our standing in the community of nations. What little goodwill that remained has been washed away by our refusal to honour prior agreements. This bill, Mr. Speaker, is a continuation of the regressive, backwards path away from international cooperation that some wish to see our young nation hurl itself upon.

I ask you all to think for one second, what will this bill achieve?

Will it convince Beijing to stand down? Will it defend our sovereignty from encroachment? Will it further international democracy? I can tell you now that the answer is a resounding no. We have no standing military to enforce any claim, we have no foreign service, and we don't even have diplomatic relations with the country that we're trying to send a message to. This will further discredit Elizia in the eyes of much of the world and deprive us of investment from the world's largest economy and from Asia's most equitable development bank. While the Social Liberal Party would rather imitate the behaviour of the ostrich in the face of reality, we instead intend to acknowledge our situation and prioritize the economic interest of this nation over some ideological tangent that will harm us by every measure.

By passing this bill, all that we will have done is irritate the largest investor in Asia. At this time, our nation should be opening doors, not closing them. The future of Southeast Asian development is APEC, it is the AIIB, it is the World Trade Organization. We are not going to get into any of these groups over the objections of their largest economy, and we are going to continue digging ourselves ever-deeper into the hole that the ENC bored. We must turn around from this path of darkness, and return to a path of light. The Chinese Interests Party believes in the strength of Elizia, but we believe that Elizia would be stronger with the help and support of the international community. We cannot afford to alienate them at this crucial moment.

Elizia thirsts for reconstruction, for economic recovery, for investment. We need homes, schools, roads, hospitals, businesses. So I urge this house to engage in politics of hope, and not politics of xenophobic fear and chauvinistic anger. Vote for the economy, for development, for a stronger Elizia; vote against this bill.

[Tumbra]

"Order, order. I declare time on An Act Addressing Chinese Agression in the South China Sea closed." the Speaker said as he ate a brownie and drank a milkshake,

"We shall now begin with debate on Obstruction of Justice Act by Sen. John Chiu"

Order Paper

---

All Times are 10.30 am UTC unless specified, or 6.30pm UTC +8 as Elizia is currently using.

- Sunday to Monday: National Education Framework Establishment Act (Sen. Raharjo-Iskandar Bambang)

- Monday to Tuesday: An Act Addressing Chinese Agression in the South China Sea (Sen. Ahmed Corbor)

- Tuesday to Wednesday: Obstruction of Justice Act (Sen. John Chiu)

- Wednesday to Thursday: Oral Questions to the President

- Thursday to Friday: Repeal of the Elizian Housing Act (Sen. Linato Aiguo)

- Friday to Saturday: National Leniency Act (Sen. Linato Aiguo)

- Saturday to Sunday: Voting on Proposed Bills

"As usual, the full text is reproduced here for Senators."

---

Obstruction of Justice Act
| Author: The Hon. John Chiu MP, Home Secretary (ChIP) |
| Sponsors: The Rt. Hon President Kevin Katdare (Collatis, LDP); The Hons. Abraham Kamassi, Social Affairs Secretary (Maklohi Vai, Labour), Katijah binti Nadeem, Foreign Secretary (The Union of the West, LDP), Tjilik Beluluk (United Provinces of Atlantica, PtH), Chi Guozhi (Freyhill, LDP) |

An Act to provide for peace, order and good government; and for connected purposes.

---

Preamble
WHEREAS the equal rule of law is a necessary hallmark of any stable and democratic system of governance,

WHEREAS the proper administration of justice requires the independent and impartial judiciary to be granted full independence from obstruction and interference,

WHEREAS actions that would constitute undue interference in the judiciary should be criminalized,

THE PARLIAMENT OF ELIZIA RESOLVES to enact the following act into law.

---

§1 - Crimes against justice

1. Obstruction of justice shall be defined as:
   i. Hindering or obstructing the legitimate work of an on-duty law enforcement officer, police auxiliary, trial judge, indigenous arbitrator or municipal mediator,
   ii. Refusing to obey or implement a binding injunction, subpoena or judicial order from a court of law,
   iii. Disclosing materials placed by the court under a publication ban or temporary seal,
   iv. Misrepresenting oneself before an official of the law.
2. Obstruction of justice is a misdemeanour. It shall be punished by no more than a US$800 fine or 20% of monthly income, whichever quantity is smaller, and three (3) weeks in prison.
3. Contempt of court shall be defined as:
   i. Acting in a disrespectful, undignified, obscene or rude manner to officials of the court during judicial proceedings,
   ii. Knowingly violating the rules of the court in an egregious or contemptuous fashion,
   iii. Operating a recording or photographic device in a courtroom without the prior consent of the presiding judge.
4. Contempt of court is a misdemeanour. It shall be punished by no more than a US$100 fine or 5 hours of community service.
5. Perverting the course of justice shall be defined as:
   i. Threatening a plaintiff, defendant, witness, law enforcement officer, police auxiliary, indigenous arbitrator, municipal mediator, official of the court or the loved ones of the aforementioned persons,
   ii. Engaging in physical violence or extortion against one of the persons enumerated in sub-section i,
   iii. Lying under oath or affirmation to a court of law,
   iv. Inciting or encouraging a person bound by oath or affirmation to lie to a court of law,
   v. Destroying, obfuscating or deliberately misrepresenting evidence in a criminal investigation,
   vi. Bribing, or attempting to bribe, an official of the law.
6. Perverting the course of justice is a felony. It shall be punished by no more than twenty-four (24) months in prison.
7. Treason is defined as:
   i. Leading, participating in, soliciting or plotting an armed insurrection or attack against the democratic and constitutional government and institutions of Elizia,
   ii. Plotting with foreign powers which are in a declared state of war with Elizia,
   iii. Assassinating or attempting to assassinate a foreign dignitary, member of the United Nations Transitional Authority, or the President or Chief Justice of Elizia.
8. Treason is a felony. It shall be punished by life in prison without possibility of parole. The authority to pardon a convicted traitor lies with the Parliament of Elizia, which may do so by a two-thirds vote.

§2 - Administrative offences

1. Contempt of Parliament shall be defined as:
   i. Violating the dignity and authority of Parliament,
   ii. Knowingly violating the rules of the Parliament in an egregious or contemptuous fashion,
   iii. Intently obstructing the business of Parliament without valid cause,
   iv. Intimidating or threatening a member of Parliament.
2. The Speaker's finding of contempt must first received five (5) seconds from members of the House. The Speaker may then fine the offensive member a maximum of US$500.

§3 - Applicability and enforcement

1. This act is valid wherever the jurisdictional arbitrage of Elizian courts apply.
2. This act shall come into effect upon the moment of its assent by the respective authority.
3. "Valid cause" is defined as actions taken to ensure the protection of Parliament or members thereof from a clear, present and immediate threat.

"I will also take this moment to remind all assembled of the current PQs allotment."

National Congress (Elizia First/Path to Harmony) - SIX (6) questions
Left Coalition (Labour/National Workers') - THREE (3) questions (OOC: informal name, no kill plz)
Social Liberal Party - TWO (2) questions
National Islamic Party - TWO (2) questions
Elizian National Congress - TWO (2) questions
Liberal Democrats - ONE (1) question
Chinese Interests Party - ONE (1) question
Federalist Party - ONE (1) question

[/quote]

[Ainin]

John stood and began reading from his notes, while occasionally shooting a glance across the aisle.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would first like to bring the House's attention to the sponsorship of this bill. It has received support from across the political spectrum for a simple reason: it is a common-sense measure to prevent obstruction and interference with our civic institutions. Elizia is a young nation that has recently unshackled itself from autocracy, and we will need time to build a civic tradition to be proud of. Until then, we must remain vigilant against attempts to erode the integrity of our democratic institutions. A first step in that regard is to prohibit behaviour that seeks to threaten, assail or otherwise harm the brave men and women that are working hard to ensure that Elizia remains free, sovereign and democratic for years to come.

The Obstruction of Justice Act's name and text speak for themselves. I hope that the House will join me in strengthening the civic society of Elizia by passing this bill.

Thank you.

[The Nihilistic view]

"Mr Speaker this is outrageous, you can't ban an entire party from here based on one member giving an opinion on what they think will happen. The reasoning is nonsense. This is a serious abuse of your powers, you won't I don't believe have them very long if you continue like this. I for one after a series of previous incidents have no confidence in you."

[Western Pacific Territories]

"I don't see a problem with this bill, to be frank." He re-read the bill, and looked at Section 2 only to think to himself "Looks like the SLC's going to get alot of fines. I hope they aren't here for this."

[Tumbra]

"Mr Speaker this is outrageous, you can't ban an entire party from here based on one member giving an opinion on what they think will happen. The reasoning is nonsense. This is a serious abuse of your powers, you won't I don't believe have them very long if you continue like this. I for one after a series of previous incidents have no confidence in you."

"Very well. I shall life the speaking ban on all members of the SLP except for the Hon. Alan Chan, as I have recently recieved a message from one of their ranks that disowns their statements. However, the ban on PQs for this session will persist - but will be lifted from the next session onwards."

[Monthuhasse]

"Mr Speaker this is outrageous, you can't ban an entire party from here based on one member giving an opinion on what they think will happen. The reasoning is nonsense. This is a serious abuse of your powers, you won't I don't believe have them very long if you continue like this. I for one after a series of previous incidents have no confidence in you."

"Very well. I shall life the speaking ban on all members of the SLP except for the Hon. Alan Chan, as I have recently recieved a message from one of their ranks that disowns their statements. However, the ban on PQs for this session will persist - but will be lifted from the next session onwards."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, you have demonstrated a human ability to think on what you have done and amend it, for that, I applaud you." Jasmine continued

"I fully support this bill and I applaud the Hon. John Chui for taking his time to draft it. It is time to establish a judiciary in this nation."

[Nariterrr]

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker for lifting that orwellian ban, I resume confidence in you." Ahmed sifted through his stack of papers to find the bill "Ah, here we go!"

"I am really fond if this bill. It establishes a clear and coherent system of judicial punishment and well defines its statutes. I urge all of my fellow Hon. Senators to vote 'aye' on this bill"

[Davincia]

"This bill is a significant step forward in how our nation shall carry out justice. However, I must admit that I am not pleased with the niche definition of treason. It should be expanded to condemn actions against Elizia in any form, rather than its current democratic shape."

[Belmaria]

Alan stood. "I have no intention of leaving the chamber. I never called the current speaker corrupt, nor have I made any intentionally false statements while debating. Further, if the speaker has the tenacity to first call for me to withdraw my supposedly false comment and apologize, only then to ban me from the chamber and therefore revoke my ability to do so, it is obvious that the speaker is not thinking clearly. In fact, although I never previously called the current speaker corrupt, I must say that I share the sentiment of others that the speaker, based on the current fiasco and past experience, might very well be corrupt, or at the very least, incompetent. Regardless of his personal feelings or opinions on various matters, raising questions about the integrity of the speaker, or making comments in debate that an MP believes to be true, are NOT grounds for barring an MP from the chamber. It is my opinion that the current speaker has acted unprofessionally on multiple occasions, and that he cannot be trusted to preside over this body. If the speaker wishes to remove me after daring to question his authority, he can do so at his own risk."

OOC: I share the sentiment of my character completely. It's obvious that I wasn't talking about Tumbra in the coffee shop, and it's quite narcissistic of Tumbra to believe that all mentions of the word "speaker" are referencing his/her character. Further, as far as I'm aware, I wasn't lying when I stated that Chinese products are traded with our nation, as well as the inverse. And even so, that's not grounds for ejection from the chamber. I have also received telegrams stating that Tumbra banned me, not because of my actions in "this chamber" but in another, which hints at metagaming if Trumbra has barred me from the chamber due to my past in other incarnations of NSGS.

[Nariterrr]

Alan stood. "I have no intention of leaving the chamber. I never called the current speaker corrupt, nor have I made any intentionally false statements while debating. Further, if the speaker has the tenacity to first call for me to withdraw my supposedly false comment and apologize, only then to ban me from the chamber and therefore revoke my ability to do so, it is obvious that the speaker is not thinking clearly. In fact, although I never previously called the current speaker corrupt, I must say that I share the sentiment of others that the speaker, based on the current fiasco and past experience, might very well be corrupt, or at the very least, incompetent. Regardless of his personal feelings or opinions on various matters, raising questions about the integrity of the speaker, or making comments in debate that an MP believes to be true, are NOT grounds for barring an MP from the chamber. It is my opinion that the current speaker has acted unprofessionally on multiple occasions, and that he cannot be trusted to preside over this body. If the speaker wishes to remove me after daring to question his authority, he can do so at his own risk."

OOC: I share the sentiment of my character completely. It's obvious that I wasn't talking about Tumbra in the coffee shop, and it's quite narcissistic of Tumbra to believe that all mentions of the word "speaker" are referencing his/her character. Further, as far as I'm aware, I wasn't lying when I stated that Chinese products are traded with our nation, as well as the inverse. And even so, that's not grounds for ejection from the chamber. I have also received telegrams stating that Tumbra banned me, not because of my actions in "this chamber" but in another, which hints at metagaming if Trumbra has barred me from the chamber due to my past in other incarnations of NSGS.

"Mr. Speaker, please note that the party stands against the Hon. Alan Chan on this, and we request that he leave the chamber or I will exercise my authority to remove him from party power."

[Belmaria]

"The leader is only continuing to demonstrate his unwillingness to stand on principle, and stand up for the members of his party. I invite him to do so for once in his life, although I won't hold my breath."

[Nariterrr]

"The leader is only continuing to demonstrate his unwillingness to stand on principle, and stand up for the members of his party. I invite him to do so for once in his life, although I won't hold my breath."

"Mr. Speaker I motion to censure and remove the member with force, not only has he demonstrated an unwillingness to abide by our rules, he has demonstrated that he is not applicable for his office. I think that permanent removal from this chamber is not out of the question."

[Belmaria]

"The leader is only continuing to demonstrate his unwillingness to stand on principle, and stand up for the members of his party. I invite him to do so for once in his life, although I won't hold my breath."

"Mr. Speaker I motion to censure and remove the member with force, not only has he demonstrated an unwillingness to abide by our rules, he has demonstrated that he is not applicable for his office. I think that permanent removal from this chamber is not out of the question."

OOC: This is classic. I'd love to know what rules you're referencing, and why a permanent ban for an elected official is in any way democratic or reasonable.

IC: "Mr. Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry. Do I have to call the gentleman a gentleman if he isn't one?"

[The Nihilistic view]

Boris waves his papers around and jeers.

[Costa Fierro]

"Mr Speaker this is outrageous, you can't ban an entire party from here based on one member giving an opinion on what they think will happen. The reasoning is nonsense. This is a serious abuse of your powers, you won't I don't believe have them very long if you continue like this. I for one after a series of previous incidents have no confidence in you."

Hajj Mohammed bin Osman stood, the motion releasing gas in his gut. He quietly farted before speaking.

"My esteemed brother is right. I have no confidence in the Speaker's abilities to impartially manage this house. I therefore would like to request a vote of no confidence in the speaker immediately."

[Filimons]

“Mr Chan, whilst there is undoubtedly room for you to voice your grievances with regard to the Speaker of this House’s decision, I would advise you to refrain from insulting his person, for convention dictates the Speaker is entitled to a certain degree of courtesy which is even greater than that accorded to ordinary members of the legislature; to go against this would not help your case. Indeed, a claim to abuse of authority can hardly be made when the honourable member making it has insulted the chamber’s presiding officer and cast doubt on his honour. I will not comment on your dealings with your own party or any other private affairs which do not concern me, but I will humbly request some respect for the dignity of Parliament. The honourable member should also note that by-elections exist and would be used in the event of his permanent removal.”