Parliament convened as a court of justice this morning to decide the fate of DAP MP for Puchong, Gobind Singh Deo, over what transpired in Parliament last Thursday but it operated as a kangaroo court as Gobind was not even allowed the floor to defend himself.
For the first hour, Pakatan Rakyat MPs raised one objection after another against the motion to suspend Gobind for one year as MP without pay and privileges, from the propriety of the motion whether from the standpoint of the Parliamentary Standing Orders, the Houses of Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Act 1952 or the Federal Constitution, to questions including double jeopardy and sub judice but they were all brushed aside by the Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin.
The Speaker also rejected the amendment by the DAP MP for Ipoh Barat, M. Kulasegaran to the motion by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz so as to refer Gobind to the Committee of Privileges over the charges cited in the motion: that Gobind had breached parliamentary privileges in alleging the involvement of the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak in the Altantuya Shariibuu murder case.
I told the House that questions about Najib’s involvement in the murder case are public interest issues, which have been raised not only in the House, but in the country and internationally.
These questions are not parliamentary contempts or parliamentary privileges, in view of the many circumstances giving legitimacy to these queries which Najib had failed to avail himself of the right to reply in the House to dismiss or clarify, including:
- Testimony by the investigating officer of the murder case that Najib was an important witness but he had not been questioned;
- Court testimony of a photograph showing three persons, including Najib and Altantuya;
- Statutory declaration by a private investigator on Najib’s relationship with Altantuya;
- The involvement of members of the police elite unit guarding the deputy prime minister in the murder case.
Pakatan Rakyat MPs staged a protest walk-out when Gobind and other PK MPs, apart from Anwar and myself, were not allowed speak in the debate – and the motion suspending Gobind for one year without pay and privileges was passed by the Umno/Barisan Nasional in Parliament.
#1 by Loh on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 - 9:53 am
It took the honourable Rahman Talib of Tunku’s cabinet to challenge another MP to repeat the statement outside the parliament to take court action to clear his name. The coward chose to hide behind the strength of number, and let others to shield him from having to fight for his personal honour.
#2 by ekans on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 - 10:21 am
shamshul anuar posted the following on 17 March 2009 at 23:46.29
Dear Shamsul,
Well, has the Malaysian ambassador to France actually lodged a strong protest against that French daily for publishing that article?
Has the Malaysian foreign ministry actually issued an official statement that it has instructed our embassy in France to do so?
It’s understandable that since most of us Malaysians can neither speak nor read French, it’s rather difficult for us ascertain the credibility of any French language daily. However, if this daily is widely read by the people of France & the other French speaking people in the rest of Europe (& also probably even in Canadian Quebec, Haiti & other countries outside Europe with a sizeable French speaking population, formerly colonised by France & even Belgium), we should not just assume that such an article will not damage to our country’s reputation outside our borders.
#3 by ekans on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 - 10:25 am
Referring to my last posted comment, first paragraph should read:
shamshul anuar posted the following on 17 March 2009 at 23:46.29
“Dear Ekans,
There is no need to get overboard with ridiculous report in French daily. Not all dailes have credibility. However, we have an ambassador there in Paris. That is the duty of an ambassador. He should strongly protest.”
#4 by ekans on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 - 10:31 am
Sorry again. The last line in the last paragraph of my last post should read:
“…we should not just assume that such an article will not damage our country’s reputation outside our borders.”
#5 by Loh on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 - 6:49 pm
///It is not a mere trifle in the minds of the rakyat that despite a direct challenge from a member of parliament in the august House recently, the deputy prime minister remained silent, not even denying the implicit accusation made against him and demanding that it be repeated outside the chamber in the tried and tested method of refutation employed by parliamentarians throughout the world.
It has not assisted the cause of the incoming prime minister that the MP concerned was suspended for a year on a motion tabled by a fellow minister without the member having been afforded an opportunity to defend his position./// — Zaid Ibrahim It is not a mere trifle in the minds of the rakyat that despite a direct challenge from a member of parliament in the august House recently, the deputy prime minister remained silent, not even denying the implicit accusation made against him and demanding that it be repeated outside the chamber in the tried and tested method of refutation employed by parliamentarians throughout the world.
It has not assisted the cause of the incoming prime minister that the MP concerned was suspended for a year on a motion tabled by a fellow minister without the member having been afforded an opportunity to defend his position. ///– Zaid Ibrahim http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/19357/84/
Looks like Nazri Abdul Aziz did not do his boss a real favour.