The Dewan Rakyat sitting wrapped up late last night, voting in favour of a motion to refer Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) to the Parliament Privileges Committee to face possible disciplinary action for allegedly misleading the House.

The motion was passed at 9pm at the end of an extended sitting. Following the motion tabled by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Abdul Aziz on behalf of premier Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the House debated the issue for two hours.

Sixty-two parliamentarians were present when the vote was taken in the Barisan Nasional-dominated House. Deputy Speaker Lim Si Cheng then announced that the motion was passed and the House adjourned sine die .

It called for the committee to consider and ascertain whether Karpal had made a "false statement and misdirected the House" after the politician cited the wrong legislation to protest against parliamentarians who had not raised their right hand during the oath-taking ceremony on May 17.

Karpal had cited the Statutory Declaration Act 1960, but later conceded he had made a mistake and said at a press conference that he should have referred to the Oaths and Affirmation Act 1949. He also clarified that the legality of the oath was not affected.

On June 1, he received a letter from Speaker Dr Mohamed Zahir Ismail seeking an explanation but Karpal refused to reply, on the basis that the Speaker had already overruled his protest when the matter was raised in the House.

The committee is expected to meet within the next two weeks to hear Karpal's case. It will submit its findings together with any recommended sanction, for the House to consider at its next sitting from July 5.

Cheap publicity?

During yesterday's debate, Backbenchers Club chairperson Shahrir Abdul Samad (BN-Johor Bharu) said he was puzzled as to why Karpal had harped on a "trivial and frivolous" issue like whether or not legislators should raise their hand during the oath-taking ceremony.

He said the matter would not have become an issue if Karpal had raised the matter before the House in written form.

"Why should the matter be stirred up during the ceremony before our guests and foreign diplomats and while the event was being shown over television? If I were of bad faith, I would think the Honourable Bukit Gelugor (MP) was trying to gain cheap publicity," Shahrir said.

"However, I don't think (he) needs this kind of cheap publicity because he is already well known and famous enough internationally."

Razali Ibrahim (BN-Muar) agreed: "Fair enough, this matter was initially a frivolous issue... and if it is (treated just as) frivolously. None of us wants to sit here and debate the motion now until 8.30pm," he said.

Important issues

Karpal and Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timor) had both earlier questioned why the House had allotted time to debate the "frivolous" motion when more important issues were pending debate.

"Is this more important than issues such as a debate on the Suhakam (Human Rights Commission of Malaysia) annual report?" an enraged Lim asked.

"Why do we have to goreng (stir up) this kind of frivolous issue? Isn't this shameful to the House, to the government under the new premier? We have been shamed in the eyes of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the world."

Citing several examples, Lim said the government ministers had also (previously) misdirected the House but that opposition MPs had behaved like "gentlemen" by not referring them to the Privileges Committee.

"The prime minister denied in a parliamentary reply recently that (ex-deputy premier) Anwar Ibrahim had lodged a police report on the Perwaja scandal... the premier should also be deemed as having misdirected the House," Lim contended.

In his defence, Karpal reiterated that the Speaker was the one who had confused the House. He said the Speaker, in a letter dated April 8, had reminded parliamentarians to raise their right hand when being sworn in.

In this respect, the Speaker's over-ruling of his (Karpal's) protest in the House was contradictory, argued the MP, who also urged BN parliamentarians to be bold and vote with their conscience, rather than along party lines.

He also demanded to know why the Speaker's letter to him had been issued only two weeks after the oath-taking ceremony.

At one juncture, Karpal said he was willing to tender an apology in the House if the Speaker would do the same. The DAP MPs then jointly shouted "Call the Speaker! Call the Speaker!" but the deputy speaker did not issue the ruling.

Letter 'confidential'

Winding-up the debate, Nazri said the letter had been issued to Karpal two weeks later because the Speaker needed time to study the matter, and so that this would not be seen as a drastic decision.

He described the procedure to raise the right hand during the oath-taking ceremony as a "convention" and said it did not determine the validity of the oath from a legal perspective.

The minister also defended the issuance of the letter by Mohamed Zahir.

"I agree that maybe the wording 'misdirected the House' is too serious, but the letter was meant for (Karpal). It was a confidential one and it was not raised in the House, or it could have cast shame on the Honourable Bukit Gelugor (MP)," Nazri said.

"The Speaker was not wrong in asking for an explanation via the letter."

Speaking to reporters later, Karpal - who is also DAP deputy chief - said he was ready to face the consequences.

Second case

Karpal is the second MP to be referred to the Privileges Committee in recent times.

In November 1983, DAP Sandakan MP Fung Ket Wing was referred to the committee after criticising former Sabah Chief Minister Harris Salleh in the House for owning huge plots of land in Labuan.

The committee, after a eight-month inquiry, found that Fung's allegation was untrue and recommended a verbal warning.

However, the recommendation was not accepted by the House, which amended it and suspended Fung for nine months.

In 2001, DAP Batu Gajah MP Fong Po Kuan was suspended without allowance for six months after she criticised the Speaker for rejecting her motion to debate a scandal involving the Certificate of Legal Practice examination.

Fong was not referred to the committee. Instead, a motion calling for her suspension was tabled in the House and passed.