PARLIAMENT | Dewan Rakyat speaker Johari Abdul said that the case is closed on the matter of the Standing Order brought against MCA lawmaker Wee Ka Siong.
In the Dewan Rakyat today, he reiterated his previous ruling that there was no prima facie case against Wee (BN-Ayer Hitam) over his dispute with Economy Minister Rafizi Ramli on the Central Database Hub’s (Padu) development cost.
“Ayer Hitam was referring to Padu’s development cost as a total for the years 2023 to 2025, while Pandan (Rafizi) was referring to Padu’s development cost up to September 2024.
“The way the issue was raised in the house on that day was from different angles.
“Because of that, I have found there is no prima facie case towards the matter raised under Standing Orders 36(6) and 36(12),” he said.
“Therefore, I am of the view that the issue does not need to be raised further after this as I have already made my decision in a letter that I have issued to Kampar (Chong Zhemin).”
Johari (above) was responding to Wee, who stood up in the Dewan Rakyat after the lunch break to emphasise that he did not have any intention to refer Rafizi to the Parliamentary Rights and Privileges Committee.
Yesterday, Chong insisted that Wee had referred Rafizi to the Rights and Privileges Committee, as Standing Order 36(12) does not take intent into account.
According to the Dewan Rakyat Standing Orders, 36(12) states that any member who imputes statements that mislead the lower house is in contempt of the house and may be referred to the privileges committee for the offence.
On Nov 6, when delivering his ministry’s Supply Bill 2025 winding-up speech, Rafizi hit out at Wee, saying that the latter’s figures were wrong.
“I want to make a small correction on the allegation that Padu was developed with a cost of RM85 million as Ayer Hitam (Wee) always says on TikTok.
“That allegation is not true,” said Rafizi, adding that Padu’s total cost as of September was only RM31 million.
The next day (Nov 7), Wee hit back in Parliament, saying he found the RM85 million figure cited in reports by multiple news outlets, including PKR mouthpiece Suara Keadilan.
Later, Chong rose to bring Standing Order 99 against Wee for twisting the interpretation of Order 36(12).
Wee did this by saying he used Standing Order 36(12) but without referring Rafizi to the Rights and Privileges Committee, he argued.
“This is as if he (Wee) entered the toilet, opened his pants, but did not urinate,” Chong said.
However, Johari repeated his ruling and warned the DAP MP not to raise the matter again. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.