Read about the bully Wong Soon Koh.....He thinks he will be in power for life! I believe his family will be cursed for his sin against the people of Sarawak and Chinese as a whole!DUN Diary - I am SuspendedPosted by Wong Ho Leng on November 10, 2008 at 07:10:24:
DUN Diary: Day 6
Sad Day, but what a shock! Or may be not. I was suspended from the DUN!
Dominique, while attempting to say what ought to be said, was suspended too. We were almost named by the Speaker, meaning, it could be worse than suspension.
(1) Motion to refer me to Committee of PrivilegesWe were at the Dewan early. It was past 9a.m., when we saw the Dewan staff distributing a motion to be moved by Soon Koh. The Ministerial Motion reads:
“Whereas on the 3rd day of November 2008, being the first day of the Second Meeting of the Third Session of this Dewan, the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek, during proceedings of the Committee of the Whole House to consider, inter alia, Command Paper No.5 of 2008 read together with Supplementary Supply (2008) Bill 2008, uttered the following words on three (3) occasions, viz.:-
“… it will be very irresponsible of a Minister to ask this Dewan to rubberstamp without debate or amendment with a huge sum being camouflaged in the Supplementary Supply Bill …” as appeared on page 8 of the Hansard dated 3rd November 2008;
and
“Do not help hide a fact. RM900 million is camouflaged …”
and
“Do not hide them just because it is a Supplementary Supply, don’t seen it, it is possible to hide them, camouflaging it” as appeared on page 9 of the Hansard.
“Whereas by the said words the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek has imputed onto the Honourable Minister for Finance II and Honourable Member for Bawang Assan an improper motive to conceal or hide an expenditure item of RM900m for which approval of the Dewan is sought, so as to deceive this Dewan into approving that expenditure item.
“Whereas by the use of the said words, the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek has committed a breach of privilege by violating S.O.32(6) of the Dewan’s Standing Orders.
“And whereas despite various opportunities being accorded to the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek to withdraw the words complained of, he has stated that he would not do so.
“And whereas the Speaker has, on the 7th day of November 2008, directed that in the circumstances, a motion be moved in this Dewan to refer the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek to the Committee of Privileges.
“Wherefore I hereby move that the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek be referred to the Committee of Privileges for that Committee to investigate into this matter and make its report to the Dewan for such action as the Dewan may deem fit to take against the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek”.
The Speaker asked me to state my defence, but I was very quickly shot down without even being allowed to go into the merit of the Defence. Worst, I was chased out for saying that the Speaker was reading a ruling, being a text pre-written by someone.
I had a few things to say of the Motion:
Firstly, reading the penultimate paragraph of the Motion, I cannot help but see that Soon Koh was suggesting that the Motion was moved NOT in his own volition, but at the direction, behest or prompting of the Speaker. That should not be allowed. A Minister’s Motion, like any other Motions to be moved in the House, must not be moved at the behest of anybody.
Secondly, in order for this Motion to be moved, it must first satisfy the threshold that a privilege has been breached. While on this, the Speaker was quick to say that I had breached the 2nd limb of Standing Order 32(6). That 2nd limb says that no member is allowed to make allegation against another member which he is not prepared to substantiate. Clearly the Speaker was wrong. I alerted his attention to the Minister’s Motion which said that the only ground against me was that I was imputing improper motive to the Minister. The Speaker was obviously upset that I had corrected him on that.
Thirdly, Standing Orders 73(3)(c) stipulates that any complaint on breach of privilege must be raised at the earliest opportunity. My words were spoken in the Dewan on Monday, 3rd Nov., in the presence of both Soon Koh and the Chief Minister as the Ministers of Finance and all cabinet Ministers and other members. Nobody had objected to my using the word “camouflage”. Were they sleeping or their English simply could not pass? The Motion was moved only today though Soon Koh did say on 4th Nov Borneo Post that he was not happy with the word “camouflage”. He should not have slept on it. It was not what he said outside the Dewan that matters but that he must complain, should he feel the word be in breach of privilege, to the Speaker at the earliest opportunity. I asked for the Speaker’s ruling whether he, and he alone, was satisfied about this threshold. The Speaker did not rule, asking me to proceed and that he would rule later.
I have no doubt that the thresholds were not satisfied. Nowhere in any Parliament in the Commonwealth would this delay not be regarded as contumelious.
In any event, I was not wrong in using the word “camouflage”. If I had to withdraw that word, it would mean that any negative comment on the Government and administration will also not be permitted. For instance, in future we may be forced to withdraw words such as “corruption”, “abuse of power”, “unfair”, “dishonest” upon threat of a Motion?As I was proceeding in my speech, I saw a Dewan staff/orderly walked up the steps to pass a piece of paper to the Speaker. It was a white piece of paper with red words written in rather big fonts. That piece of paper came from behind the roll of seats behind Violet. That is to say, the 3rd roll from my seat.
In explaining my stance on the Motion, I referred to the wording in the Supplementary Supply Bill and re-alert the Dewan to the fact that that Bill was to authorize “out of the Consolidated Fund for the service of the year 2008 of a sum not exceeding RM921,517,361 for expenditure on the various services specified in the Schedule not provided for or not fully provided for by the Supply (2008) Ordinance, 2007”.
It was in that context that I had said the sum of RM900 million was camouflaged in the Supplementary Supply Bill which must be passed without debate or amendment. The Supplementary Supply Bill is always meant to look for money which had been expended but not or not fully provided for.
The Speaker ordered me to stop, saying he had heard this last Friday.
But how could I be denied my right to defend? Whatever that was said by me last Friday was in respect of another Motion, which was a general Motion for observing decorum in the Dewan.
This is a specific motion to “do” me! I am certainly entitled to defend. There was this challenge to my elected office.
Dominique rose to say that I was entitled to defend but the Speaker proceeded to read “his ruling”. Dominique rightly complained that the Speaker was reading from a written text. Incensed, the Speaker ordered him, “OUT” and gestured the Sergeant at Arms to remove Dominique.
As the Speaker was making a ruling on whether the Motion satisfied the threshold that the complaint was raised at the earliest opportunity, there is no reason for the Speaker to read the ruling from ready-written text! God is my witness as to what might have happened.
I rose to say that the Speaker should not read his ruling from the text that was written for him. Was the Motion too late or mala fide? The Speaker ought to have answered it in the Dewan in promptu. How could he anticipate that I would raise the complaint? If he had anticipated and written his ruling, it would simply mean that he would not have considered my grounds in raising the complaint in the Dewan.
Incensed by my query, the Speaker ordered me “Out” too. Since I was the one who was the subject of the Ministerial Motion, the Speaker could have explained how the ruling came to be written, or what was it that he received from the Orderly, if not the text from which he read. How could he order me out so summarily?
As the Sergeant at Arms moved close to me, I told him not to touch me. If I had to, I would walk myself. I had wanted to remove my belongings, including the Hansard and notebook computer, but then I walked out myself without them.
The reason is simple. I was merely ordered “OUT”. There was no order that after I went out, I could not come back in. In his haste to order me and Dominique “out”, the Speaker had not been specific.
After about 20 minutes of Press Conference, I walked in to the Dewan. The Speaker interrupted the Minister’s Reply to say that I was ordered “out” for the whole day. You had not ordered that before, I replied. “That was understood”, he said.
How can that “OUT” order be synonymous with suspension for the whole day?
The Speaker was prepared to “name” me unless I removed myself. The same warning was given to Dominique. By naming, it means that we could be suspended from service for the duration of this meeting or even next meeting.
I moved off, having lost faith in the House.
I am hurt by the actions against me, but I am not prepared to cry for my fate. I would be back tomorrow. But I wanted to ask, where is conscience? Sad if conscience has been eaten by the wolves.
I requested my colleagues to stay back in the Dewan and seek clarifications if Awang Tengah’s reply on land problems was wanting. I had spoken at length on the New Land Policy in my speech. I felt painful that I had lost my opportunity to ask Awang Tengah the tons of questions which had welled up in my head.
At lunch time, my colleagues told me that there was not much in Awang Tengah’s Reply. So, what has happened to those land problems? The SUPP had said that they would bring the land problems for discussion in the Dewan. There was no such Motion from the best of the SUPP, Soon Koh. But there was only this Motion to silence the Opposition.
(2) Couplet for Soon Koh
Chong, Chin Sing and I had a meeting and supper together last night. Chin Sing, as the Whip of the DAP in Dewan, had SMSed to all colleagues requesting them to get ready their debate speeches in support of me.
Tze Fui quickly purchased a placard and calligraph the following couplet:
有權有勢留一線權勢用盡禍將至
Translation:
While in power, do not abuseDoom befalls when power is gone
Tze Fui said that she wanted to present the couplet to Soon Koh when she presented her speech in opposition to Soon Koh’s Motion.
No speech was allowed from them. I had not even been allowed to speak the full length in my own defence.
During the press conference called by Soon Koh, Tze Fui and Violet presented the couplet to Soon Koh, who, smilingly accepted, but only to see him shredding it right in the presence of reporters. Childish, isn’t it?
As the Dewan went into tea break, Soon Koh did an about-turn. He had “repaired” the shredded placard by gluing the pieces. In return, he wanted to present to Violet and Tze Fui a couplet in reply which reads:
話到嘴邊留一半高枕無憂無禍害
Translation:
Say only half the words you wanted to saySleep high and tight to avoid harm
Violet and Tze Fui rejected the presentation but agreed to take a picture with Soon Koh with the couplet. In the process, the reporters pointed out to Soon Koh a word that was wrongly written. Yeah. Not because he was a headmaster or now a Minister. All people are susceptible to making mistakes. But has he made a mistake in referring me to the Committee of Privileges? The people will give the verdict later.
This couplet has no meaning. As elected representatives, we should not refrain from speaking the whole truth, without fear or favour, for the people, especially for those who are oppressed. We should not fear those in power. Shutting our mouths may ensure us peace, but the people will wail in despair. Only apple polishers and dishonest politicians would speak half truth so that they can keep their office.
(3) Forced Holiday
It is a forced holiday to me. Sad, isn’t it? I have never liked holiday.
DUN Diary: Day 6
Sad Day, but what a shock! Or may be not. I was suspended from the DUN!
Dominique, while attempting to say what ought to be said, was suspended too. We were almost named by the Speaker, meaning, it could be worse than suspension.
(1) Motion to refer me to Committee of PrivilegesWe were at the Dewan early. It was past 9a.m., when we saw the Dewan staff distributing a motion to be moved by Soon Koh. The Ministerial Motion reads:
“Whereas on the 3rd day of November 2008, being the first day of the Second Meeting of the Third Session of this Dewan, the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek, during proceedings of the Committee of the Whole House to consider, inter alia, Command Paper No.5 of 2008 read together with Supplementary Supply (2008) Bill 2008, uttered the following words on three (3) occasions, viz.:-
“… it will be very irresponsible of a Minister to ask this Dewan to rubberstamp without debate or amendment with a huge sum being camouflaged in the Supplementary Supply Bill …” as appeared on page 8 of the Hansard dated 3rd November 2008;
and
“Do not help hide a fact. RM900 million is camouflaged …”
and
“Do not hide them just because it is a Supplementary Supply, don’t seen it, it is possible to hide them, camouflaging it” as appeared on page 9 of the Hansard.
“Whereas by the said words the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek has imputed onto the Honourable Minister for Finance II and Honourable Member for Bawang Assan an improper motive to conceal or hide an expenditure item of RM900m for which approval of the Dewan is sought, so as to deceive this Dewan into approving that expenditure item.
“Whereas by the use of the said words, the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek has committed a breach of privilege by violating S.O.32(6) of the Dewan’s Standing Orders.
“And whereas despite various opportunities being accorded to the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek to withdraw the words complained of, he has stated that he would not do so.
“And whereas the Speaker has, on the 7th day of November 2008, directed that in the circumstances, a motion be moved in this Dewan to refer the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek to the Committee of Privileges.
“Wherefore I hereby move that the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek be referred to the Committee of Privileges for that Committee to investigate into this matter and make its report to the Dewan for such action as the Dewan may deem fit to take against the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek”.
The Speaker asked me to state my defence, but I was very quickly shot down without even being allowed to go into the merit of the Defence. Worst, I was chased out for saying that the Speaker was reading a ruling, being a text pre-written by someone.
I had a few things to say of the Motion:
Firstly, reading the penultimate paragraph of the Motion, I cannot help but see that Soon Koh was suggesting that the Motion was moved NOT in his own volition, but at the direction, behest or prompting of the Speaker. That should not be allowed. A Minister’s Motion, like any other Motions to be moved in the House, must not be moved at the behest of anybody.
Secondly, in order for this Motion to be moved, it must first satisfy the threshold that a privilege has been breached. While on this, the Speaker was quick to say that I had breached the 2nd limb of Standing Order 32(6). That 2nd limb says that no member is allowed to make allegation against another member which he is not prepared to substantiate. Clearly the Speaker was wrong. I alerted his attention to the Minister’s Motion which said that the only ground against me was that I was imputing improper motive to the Minister. The Speaker was obviously upset that I had corrected him on that.
Thirdly, Standing Orders 73(3)(c) stipulates that any complaint on breach of privilege must be raised at the earliest opportunity. My words were spoken in the Dewan on Monday, 3rd Nov., in the presence of both Soon Koh and the Chief Minister as the Ministers of Finance and all cabinet Ministers and other members. Nobody had objected to my using the word “camouflage”. Were they sleeping or their English simply could not pass? The Motion was moved only today though Soon Koh did say on 4th Nov Borneo Post that he was not happy with the word “camouflage”. He should not have slept on it. It was not what he said outside the Dewan that matters but that he must complain, should he feel the word be in breach of privilege, to the Speaker at the earliest opportunity. I asked for the Speaker’s ruling whether he, and he alone, was satisfied about this threshold. The Speaker did not rule, asking me to proceed and that he would rule later.
I have no doubt that the thresholds were not satisfied. Nowhere in any Parliament in the Commonwealth would this delay not be regarded as contumelious.
In any event, I was not wrong in using the word “camouflage”. If I had to withdraw that word, it would mean that any negative comment on the Government and administration will also not be permitted. For instance, in future we may be forced to withdraw words such as “corruption”, “abuse of power”, “unfair”, “dishonest” upon threat of a Motion?As I was proceeding in my speech, I saw a Dewan staff/orderly walked up the steps to pass a piece of paper to the Speaker. It was a white piece of paper with red words written in rather big fonts. That piece of paper came from behind the roll of seats behind Violet. That is to say, the 3rd roll from my seat.
In explaining my stance on the Motion, I referred to the wording in the Supplementary Supply Bill and re-alert the Dewan to the fact that that Bill was to authorize “out of the Consolidated Fund for the service of the year 2008 of a sum not exceeding RM921,517,361 for expenditure on the various services specified in the Schedule not provided for or not fully provided for by the Supply (2008) Ordinance, 2007”.
It was in that context that I had said the sum of RM900 million was camouflaged in the Supplementary Supply Bill which must be passed without debate or amendment. The Supplementary Supply Bill is always meant to look for money which had been expended but not or not fully provided for.
The Speaker ordered me to stop, saying he had heard this last Friday.
But how could I be denied my right to defend? Whatever that was said by me last Friday was in respect of another Motion, which was a general Motion for observing decorum in the Dewan.
This is a specific motion to “do” me! I am certainly entitled to defend. There was this challenge to my elected office.
Dominique rose to say that I was entitled to defend but the Speaker proceeded to read “his ruling”. Dominique rightly complained that the Speaker was reading from a written text. Incensed, the Speaker ordered him, “OUT” and gestured the Sergeant at Arms to remove Dominique.
As the Speaker was making a ruling on whether the Motion satisfied the threshold that the complaint was raised at the earliest opportunity, there is no reason for the Speaker to read the ruling from ready-written text! God is my witness as to what might have happened.
I rose to say that the Speaker should not read his ruling from the text that was written for him. Was the Motion too late or mala fide? The Speaker ought to have answered it in the Dewan in promptu. How could he anticipate that I would raise the complaint? If he had anticipated and written his ruling, it would simply mean that he would not have considered my grounds in raising the complaint in the Dewan.
Incensed by my query, the Speaker ordered me “Out” too. Since I was the one who was the subject of the Ministerial Motion, the Speaker could have explained how the ruling came to be written, or what was it that he received from the Orderly, if not the text from which he read. How could he order me out so summarily?
As the Sergeant at Arms moved close to me, I told him not to touch me. If I had to, I would walk myself. I had wanted to remove my belongings, including the Hansard and notebook computer, but then I walked out myself without them.
The reason is simple. I was merely ordered “OUT”. There was no order that after I went out, I could not come back in. In his haste to order me and Dominique “out”, the Speaker had not been specific.
After about 20 minutes of Press Conference, I walked in to the Dewan. The Speaker interrupted the Minister’s Reply to say that I was ordered “out” for the whole day. You had not ordered that before, I replied. “That was understood”, he said.
How can that “OUT” order be synonymous with suspension for the whole day?
The Speaker was prepared to “name” me unless I removed myself. The same warning was given to Dominique. By naming, it means that we could be suspended from service for the duration of this meeting or even next meeting.
I moved off, having lost faith in the House.
I am hurt by the actions against me, but I am not prepared to cry for my fate. I would be back tomorrow. But I wanted to ask, where is conscience? Sad if conscience has been eaten by the wolves.
I requested my colleagues to stay back in the Dewan and seek clarifications if Awang Tengah’s reply on land problems was wanting. I had spoken at length on the New Land Policy in my speech. I felt painful that I had lost my opportunity to ask Awang Tengah the tons of questions which had welled up in my head.
At lunch time, my colleagues told me that there was not much in Awang Tengah’s Reply. So, what has happened to those land problems? The SUPP had said that they would bring the land problems for discussion in the Dewan. There was no such Motion from the best of the SUPP, Soon Koh. But there was only this Motion to silence the Opposition.
(2) Couplet for Soon Koh
Chong, Chin Sing and I had a meeting and supper together last night. Chin Sing, as the Whip of the DAP in Dewan, had SMSed to all colleagues requesting them to get ready their debate speeches in support of me.
Tze Fui quickly purchased a placard and calligraph the following couplet:
有權有勢留一線權勢用盡禍將至
Translation:
While in power, do not abuseDoom befalls when power is gone
Tze Fui said that she wanted to present the couplet to Soon Koh when she presented her speech in opposition to Soon Koh’s Motion.
No speech was allowed from them. I had not even been allowed to speak the full length in my own defence.
During the press conference called by Soon Koh, Tze Fui and Violet presented the couplet to Soon Koh, who, smilingly accepted, but only to see him shredding it right in the presence of reporters. Childish, isn’t it?
As the Dewan went into tea break, Soon Koh did an about-turn. He had “repaired” the shredded placard by gluing the pieces. In return, he wanted to present to Violet and Tze Fui a couplet in reply which reads:
話到嘴邊留一半高枕無憂無禍害
Translation:
Say only half the words you wanted to saySleep high and tight to avoid harm
Violet and Tze Fui rejected the presentation but agreed to take a picture with Soon Koh with the couplet. In the process, the reporters pointed out to Soon Koh a word that was wrongly written. Yeah. Not because he was a headmaster or now a Minister. All people are susceptible to making mistakes. But has he made a mistake in referring me to the Committee of Privileges? The people will give the verdict later.
This couplet has no meaning. As elected representatives, we should not refrain from speaking the whole truth, without fear or favour, for the people, especially for those who are oppressed. We should not fear those in power. Shutting our mouths may ensure us peace, but the people will wail in despair. Only apple polishers and dishonest politicians would speak half truth so that they can keep their office.
(3) Forced Holiday
It is a forced holiday to me. Sad, isn’t it? I have never liked holiday.
1 comment:
BO Cai Wong Soon Koh was a Principal and an educationist before and he showed no openess in life and moreover, he showed himself so low!!!
Ashame to be his subjects of Sarawak either! Not only he showed all sorts of bulliness in this, he already showed himself bullying in the SUPP to bully off his DR Soon. Dont see that!!!!
He angkat burit for whom for so high for how long, we the rakyat should have eyes to see that!
Post a Comment