Opposition MPs walk out, six suspended over Apco issue

An emergency motion to question the intention of Parliament's rights and privileges committee's decision to censure Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim without calling for his defence was rejected today.

Opposition parliamentarian Azmin Ali (PKR-Gombak, right ) interrupted the debate at the committee-stage of the Supply Bill 2011 to table the urgent motion under Standing Order 18(1).

Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia said the committee's decision had yet to be tabled in Parliament, and therefore the motion was not urgent.

Azmin refused to accept the rejection. He was followed by other opposition MPs who argued with Pandikar for over 50 minutes.

The speaker then ordered the House secretary to read the next order of the day, but to no avail because of the din raised by the MPs who had continued arguing.

As a result of this, Pandikar suspended the six opposition MPs who were then standing, until the House reconvened after lunch at 2.30pm.

They were Azmin, Tian Chua (PKR-Batu), Yusmadi Yusoff (PKR-Balik Pulau), N Gobalakrishnan (PKR-Padang Serai), Azan Ismail (PKR-Indera Mahkota) and Khalid Samad (PAS-Shah Alam).

All the opposition MPs then walked out of Dewan Rakyat in protest.

It was reported last week that the powerful rights and privileges committee would not listen to any more witnesses, including Anwar, and would decide on Anwar’s fate based on a letter of explanation from international public relations firm Apco Worldwide.

Azmin had filed the motion on Monday, but it was rejected in chambers earlier today under Standing Order 85.

According to the rule book, the motion cannot be raised in the Dewan Rakyat as the committee’s decision must be tabled before it can be debated.

“But my argument is that the proceeding hasn’t even begun but Permatang Pauh (Anwar) has been denied defence and (the opportunity to) provide the (necessary) documents... (the motion) was based on what unfolded during the Dec 3 meeting,” said Azmin.

Anwar (right) was referred to the committee after claiming in the House that Apco had links with Israel and that it masterminded both the ‘1Malaysia’ and ‘OneIsrael’ campaigns, producing documents to back his assertions.

He was not allowed the right to legal representation before the parliamentary rights and privileges committee.

“The committee gave the excuse that it had received a letter from Apco on Aug 19. Is that the only reason? Why can’t the government give (us) a chance to cross-examine on Apco’s letter?” asked Azmin.

“This strengthens that (the claim) that Apco is powerful enough to influence Umno and BN.”

Anwar’s defence 'irrelevant’

Pandikar said Azmin had cited the Standing Order wrongly, saying it must be only be used to raise issues that are specific and which concern the public interest.

Azmin kept stressing that he was not questioning the speaker’s decision or disputing the committee’s findings, but wanted to know why the committee had prevented Anwar from defending himself.

He referred to a previous statement by Pandikar on April 22, pointing out that the latter had given a guarantee that the Anwar would be allowed to explain himself before the committee.

“In your own words, you said that before a person is referred to the committee under Standing Order 36(12), the House first needs to debate to agree or disagree if the person should be referred.

“Following this, the committee will investigate the matter, call the accused for an explanation, call other witnesses and (consider) all the relevant documents before a decision is made, and that the recommendations will be tabled again before the House for another round of debate.”

But Pandikar (right) refused to budge and ordered those standing in protest to sit down, or face being booted out for disrupting the House.

Pandikar also referred to Standing Order 83(11), where the committee may refuse to take any statement that has no connection with the charge involved.

Subang PKR MP R Sivarasa, a member of the bipartisan committee, rose to agree that the panel has the right to deny any “irrelevant defence”.

“But irrelevant means there is no connection (with the hearing). So how can we say that the explanation from Permatang Pauh (Anwar) is not relevant?” he asked.

But Pandikar said this was up to interpretation and insisted that rule 83(11) was applicable.

The opposition bench erupted once more. Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) told Pandikar to refrain from making any decision on Azmin’s motion, pointing out that it would be a conflict of interest as the speaker chairs the committee.

“Thank you, YB (Karpal). But I do not think it is a conflict of interest. I do not play favourites here,” said Pandikar.

Opposition shouts continued fill the House, with Azmin’s voice heard above the rest, accusing the speaker of having been ‘bought’ by Umno.

BN backbenchers then added to the clamour, lashing out at Azmin for ‘disrespecting’ the speaker and asking Pandikar to act.

Tian Chua (PKR -Batu, left ) and N Gobalakrishnan (PKR-Padang Serai) attempted to table another emergency motion under Standing Order 18(3b), which requires 15 MPs to stand and to overrule the speaker’s decision.

“Standing Order 18(3b) is irrelevant. If you want to reject the speaker’s decision, the motion has to be carried out individually and you cannot just stand and declare your support for it. You need to send a notice to the House first,” retorted Pandikar.

After several warnings, Pandikar ordered several of the MPs to leave the House until the afternoon session.

“Please leave, Padang Serai (Gobalakrishnan), Balik Pulau (Yusmadi Yusoff, PKR) and Indera Mahkota (Azan Ismail, PKR). Who else is standing? You can leave,” he said, which then saw the entire bench walking out in protest.

The recommendations of the rights and privileges committee are expected to be submitted after the Supply Bill 2011 is passed.

As BN holds the majority in the House, it is likely that Anwar will be suspended for six months before the sitting ends on Dec 16.