Opposition Slammed For Spreading Inaccurate Information On Nurul Izzah’s Detention

The majority of us are not familiar with the full extent of the Rules of Parliament. How many of us can honestly say that we have read them? A backbencher Tuesday slammed the opposition for deliberately spreading inaccurate information about the detention of Nurul Izzah Anwar and use it for their political mileage.

Che Mohamad Zulkifly Jusoh (BN-Setiu) said the opposition had twisted the facts when they claimed the police investigation against Nurul Izzah (PKR-Lembah Pantai) contradicted with her immunity as a member of Parliament.


“The fact is Nurul Izzah herself did not respect the Dewan Rakyat’s standing orders during a debate on March 10, when she violated Section 36(8) of the House of Representatives order,” he said when debating the motion of thanks on the Royal in the Dewan Rakyat.

Under Section 36(8), Members of Parliament (MPs) in debating, are forbidden to touch on the behavior or traits of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the Malay Rulers, Yang di-Pertua Negeri, or judges and other persons exercising justice in court or a member of the Armed Forces Council.

Che Mohamad Zulkifly said while debating, Nurul Izzah was also inserting her father Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s speeches and she was reprimanded by Dewan Rakyat Deputy Speaker Datuk Ronald Kiandee who read out to her the standing order.

“Even the police investigation on Nurul Izzah was made after Zulkifli Noordin lodged a police report against Lembah Pantai’s (Nurul Izzah) statement,” he said.

Nurul Izzah was reportedly held under the Sedition Act 1948 Monday to assist in investigations into a gathering here on March 7 and a remark on the judiciary she had allegedly made in the Dewan Rakyat last week.

She was released Tuesday on police bail.

Che Mohamad Zulkifly said the fact that the MPs are not covered by immunity as a member of Parliament was provided for under Article 63(4) of the Federal Constitution.

“The immunity is not absolute and she (Nurul Izzah) has only read half of the overall description under Article 63(4),” he said.

The Article 63(4) of the Federal Constitution sets aside the provisions under Article 63(2) in respect of immunity of MPs, allows action to be taken against any individual who is found guilty of committing a crime under law passed by the Parliament under Article 10(4) of the Federal Constitution or any offence under the Sedition Act 1948.

Datuk Shamsul Anuar Nasarah (BN-Lenggong) shared the same opinion as Che Mohamad Zulkifly.

The Lenggong MP also expressed regret with the opposition’s action in spreading inaccurate information in the social media to seek publicity.

“The opposition are talking about less accurate matters and they interpreting the law in accordance with their interests,” he said.

The Dewan Rakyat sits again Wednesday.

Source:  http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v8/po/newspolitics.php?id=1117902