@Chanku And what would you do to avoid things that happened when it was, depending on who you speak to, abused the term before it was removed?
We've already seen the repercussions of what can happen when it's abused, and what can be thrown at the Speaker if it's even felt like they abused it.
If that section was still around, there wouldn't even be a case right now because it would have been "up to my discretion" to dictate how the rules are interpreted.
Would anyone have been happy with that? No. I'm pretty sure things would be similar as to where they are now, except I'd be able to flaunt my power as a Speaker by saying that since it's vague, I can interpret it however the hell I want.
Whereas in this case, I did exploit the loophole, but I can't be like "Well, lol, I has power to do that." and you were the very first person to call me out on it and even start a case against that decision.
The difference with having it and not having it is that it keeps Speakers with personal vendettas away from the chair. Unlike what you did in your term when--as I said,depending on who you speak to--you used your personal bias/agenda to push/dismiss legislation...the removal of that bill completely disallows that and instead allows you to call me out on doing essentially the exact same thing: exploiting a loophole.
Only difference now is that it's actually
technically not within my power to do so.