DECEMBER 5 — The final day of the Dewan Rakyat sitting yesterday (December 4) sparked tension when Deputy Home Minister Datuk Seri Shamsul Anuar Nasarah tabled a motion to suspend Kota Bharu MP Datuk Seri Takiyuddin Hassan from attending Dewan Rakyat sittings for six months.
Takiyuddin was alleged to have linked an incident involving the Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) at Masjid Rusila, Marang, Kuala Terengganu to the infamous Memali incident in Baling, Kedah which left 14 villagers and four policemen dead.
Before tabling the motion, Shamsul said he was tabling the motion to defend the image of the MMEA.
According to the motion, Takiyuddin’s description of the incident was an attempt to instil fear among the public and cast a negative light on the image and reputation of MMEA personnel within the public service.
This was despite the Home Ministry stating that police had given clarifications on Oct 6 and Oct 13 that the episode was a training exercise conducted by MMEA’s STAR Team.
A day earlier (December 3), Takiyuddin, who is also the Opposition chief whip, had questioned the legality of the motion.
Takiyuddin said the motion to suspend him for six months under the Dewan Rakyat Standing Order 27(3) was “sudden”.
“Why was I not brought before the [Parliamentary Rights and Privileges Committee]? In law, this is called ‘double jeopardy’ — two proceedings on one issue against the same person,” he added.
The Kota Bharu MP said he had been referred to the committee by Pulai MP Suhaizan Kayat, a process which has yet to conclude. He claimed he had submitted a six-page written explanation to the Speaker.
“Once my explanation was received, the next step should have been for the Speaker to decide if there was a prima facie case before referring it to the committee,” he asserted.
So, was the motion to suspend Kota Bharu MP a double jeopardy?
Article 7(2) of the Federal Constitution provides that “a person who has been acquitted or convicted of an offence shall not be tried again for the same offence”. Section 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code contains a similar rule – that is, the rule against double jeopardy.
Once convicted or acquitted, a person cannot be tried again for the same offence.
Takiyuddin’s referral to the Parliamentary Rights and Privileges Committee has yet to conclude.
Again, was the motion to suspend Kota Bahru MP a double jeopardy?
*This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
