MP Fong suspended for six months without pay
updated version The Dewan Rakyat today voted 83 to 28 to suspend opposition member of Parliament Fong Po Kuan for allegedly making 'contemptuous' remarks against the House speaker.
updated version The Dewan Rakyat today voted 83 to 28 to suspend opposition member of Parliament Fong Po Kuan for allegedly making 'contemptuous' remarks against the House speaker.
With the suspension, Fong, the youngest MP at 27, will be deprived of her monthly RM5,000 in pay and allowances for the next six months.
De facto Law Minister Dr Rais Yatim this morning kicked off the marathon four-hour debate after moving a motion to censure Fong (DAP - Batu Gajah) for accusing House speaker Mohamed Zahir Ismail of "abusing his powers".
All Barisan Nasional MPs voted in favour of the motion while rival Barisan Alternatif MPs voted against it.
After the motion was passed, all the opposition MPs from PAS, Keadilan and DAP walked out with Fong in a show of solidarity.
During the vote, 111 MPs were present and 82 absent. Out of the 193 MPs, 42 are from the opposition.
The DAP MP, whose motion to debate the tampering of the Certificate in Legal Practice (CLP) results was rejected earlier last week, had in a press statement accused Zahir of attempting to obstruct Parliament and its members from carrying out their duties.
Rais, who filed the motion on behalf of the prime minister, said Fong should be suspended for six months after an apology from her was not forthcoming despite demands.
He also proposed that newspapers who had published her report be warned so that the House will not be "insulted" in the future.
Financial support
In an immediate reaction, Fong said she had expected the results but will continue to speak for the people.
On how she is going to resolve her financial status, Fong said she would have to "make plans".
Chong Eng (DAP - Bukit Mertajam) said the party's women's wing will support Fong "financially and spiritually".
Fong Kui Lun (DAP - Bukit Bintang) told reporters outside the Parliament lobby, "The people of Batu Gajah will support her."
Party secretary-general Kerk Kim Hock (DAP - Kota Melaka) said today was a sad day for Parliament due to the "harsh punishment" meted out on Fong.
"Also many points raised in the debate were not answered by the minister. He cannot justify the government's actions," he said.
Kerk also thanked the other opposition MPs for supporting Fong and the DAP.
"People can see the injustice of the motion and were compelled to speak out," he added.
Mohamed Sabu (PAS - Kuala Kedah) said the Muslim party will back Fong and agreed with Kerk that many points raised in the debate were not answered satisfactorily by Rais.
Parliamentary opposition leader Fadzil Noor (PAS - Pendang) said the punishment on Fong was meant to stifle the MPs' freedom to speak within and without Parliament.
"The government has abused the power of the majority for its benefit," said the PAS president.
Fadzil added that the party is sympathetic to Fong's plight and is considering a campaign to seek financial support for her.
Unprecedented punishment
The punishment on Fong is unprecedented in the history of Parliament. Previous MPs - Karpal Singh (DAP - Jelutong) and Fong Keat Weng (DAP - Bukit Bintang) were 'disciplined' because they uttered similar 'contemptuous' remarks in the House, not outside.
Fong had applied on Nov 29 for the House to debate the issue of the tampered CLP examination results.
Her request was dismissed last Tuesday by the speaker for not fulfilling the three pre-requisites needed for debate - that of urgency, a specific topic and public interest.
The speaker had also said the matter was already in court and was therefore sub judice if debated in public.
Dissatisfied with the decision, Fong later issued a press statement claiming that the speaker had abused his powers and prevented Parliament and its members from playing their rightful role.
Fong held the view that the speaker had erred in making the decision because her motion was primarily to debate the issue of tampered marks.
She argued that it was not sub judice as the case filed in court was regarding the nullification of the results, which is a different matter altogether.

