MP Gobind was suspended for a year for accusing Najib of involvement in the murder of a Mongolian beauty, Atlantuja and the statement was made in the parliament. The speaker could have asked Najib to respond since Najib was in the meeting hall at that time. It would have been easy for Najib to deny his involvement, just like other MPs denying their involvement when accused of corruption. The crime accused of might be different, but the person had the opportunity to deny. In fact Najib was presented with the opportunity to clear himself. He could have said more about his non-involvement than he had made sworn statement in the mosque that he did not know the victim. Yes swearing in the mosque has effect on the Muslims, but there are also non-Muslim Malaysians and they wanted to know whether Najib was in fact involved. Najib could have challenged MP Gobind to repeat the statement outside the parliament, and then he can sue Gobind for defamation. In that case there was no need to acquire the services of the Speaker resulting in undermining the dignity of the parliament.

If accusing another MP of having acted against the law would land one suspension from parliament, how can one expect MP to raise any issues for example of corruption being perpetrated? Clearly only the court can decide whether what has been accused of was the truth. So MP Gonind should not be suspended because there was no way to prove that what he said in the parliament was incorrect.

Has the parliament now laid the rule for double standard; that a person going to become the PM of the country cannot be questioned at all? Has the PM-to-be acquired the status of the royalty where statement made such as by MP Gobind was taken as lese majestie, and he should be punished through all foul means based on number of BN seats in the parliament rather than justice and righteousness?

Nazri Abdul Aziz has succeeded in silencing people from questioning whether Najib was actually involved in the murder, but his action in the parliament has heightened people’s doubts about Najib’s non-involvement.

Back in the 1960s, MP Seenivasagam from Ipoh (?) Perak said in parliament that Minister Rahman Talib was involved incorruption. Rahman Talib challenged Seenivasagam to repeat it outside the parliament and a court case ensued. Senivasagam was not suspended for a year for making statement that needed outside confirmation. Why cannot Najib challenge MP Gobind Singh Deo to repeat that statement and have a court case to decide whether Gobind should pay for his comment? There is no need to deprive the people of Puchong, 100,000 of them the right to be represented by the MP for one year in the parliament. Gobind is ready to be responsible for what he said. Surely the Deputy Prime Minister does not need to resort to the services of the Speaker and BN MPs to silence Gobind Singh Deo and at the same time causing collateral damage to the people of Puchong when he could have proved to the world that he was clean by challenging Gobind Singh to repeat his statement and then take him to court. If he has not thought about it, he can very well do it now, and prevent this matter becoming a laughing stock elsewhere. How should Najib answer when he is asked how he proved that he was not involved in the murder when he represents Malaysia overseas? Will Nazri Abdul Aziz be there to screen the questions first?

Silencing people for questioning Najib’s involvement in the murder along the way handled by Nasri Abdul Aziz is like quenching thirst with poison, the problem is postponed temporarily but death eventuates.