Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) said that Deputy Speaker Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar’s interpretation of the controversy surrounding the RM2,000 penalty imposed on PKR national strategy director Tian Chua was incorrect.

Earlier today, Wan Junaidi told reporters that since Chua (PKR-Batu) was sentenced to two months’ jail or a RM2,000 fine, choosing the jail sentence could avoid the issue of whether he would be disqualified.

Wan Junaidi also claimed that it is the House, not the Speaker, who will decide whether Chua would lose his Parliament seat.

“The Speaker said that if Batu undergoes a two-month imprisonment (term), then he (Chua) will not lose his qualification to be an MP. This is an incorrect interpretation,” Karpal said while debating on the 10th Malaysia Plan in the House.

According to Article 48 of the Federal Constitution, if an MP is imprisoned less than a year or fined not less than RM2,000, he loses his seat. Karpal added that Chua had indeed been imposed a penalty of RM2,000.

Karpal explained that the two months’ imprisonment is in lieu of the RM2,000 fine.

“If he (Chua) does not pay, then he will be imprisoned for two months. It does not mean if he was imprisoned for two months, he won’t lose his qualification as an MP,” Karpal continued.

Deputy speaker does not react

sibu by election karpal singhThe DAP national chairman also claimed that it was a wrong interpretation by Wan Junaidi when he said that the qualification issue falls within the power of the House.

“The Speaker has said on (a) Internet (news report), on the issue regarding Batu’s qualification being in the hands of this House. This is a wrong interpretation,” Karpal (right) added.

The veteran lawyer then queried whether Wan Junaidi had indeed made the statements mentioned.

“Did you voice this out earlier? I am not cross-examining you, but just want to confirm if you said it,” he asked, to which Wan Junaidi did not respond.

“Why do you (Wan Junaidi) keep quiet? Can you confirm this?,” he probed further, prompting laughter from other MPs.

Earlier in his speech, Karpal also suggested that Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s cat should be called Scorpene as he was involved in the scandal.

Karpal: It’s the law

At the Parliament lobby, Karpal reiterated his stand that Chua's seat should be vacated based on the strict interpretation of Article 48 of the Federal Constitution.

"This is not a question of precedent, it is common sense. Not less than RM2,000 is RM2,000 and more.. What is the problem? I cannot understand (the fuss)," he told reporters.

He explained that the decision to disqualify Chua does not fall within the jurisdiction of the House as claimed by Wan Junaidi.   

"The speaker will receive a sealed order of court. After that, the speaker will inform the Election Commission that a seat in the House is vacate.

“Like when someone dies, the death cert is sent to the speaker and the speaker will declare that the seat is open," said Karpal.

However, he pointed out that Chua has 14 days to appeal the court decision, and that the speaker cannot take action until a court order is received.

I’m not anti-Pakatan

On why he was so adamant in claiming that Chua was already disqualified as a lawmaker, Karpal said that it was his duty as a lawmaker and lawyer to state the law.

"I may be from Pakatan Rakyat, but it is the law (that is disputed). I cannot lie just because I am in the Pakatan Rakyat. I am not anti-Pakatan.

pakat leaders meeting 310110 lim kit siang“I am not joining the Barisan Nasional by giving this interpretation. Please!" he said.

Karpal and his colleague Lim Kit Siang (left) (DAP-Ipoh Timur) were among the more vocal Pakatan MPs who claimed that the court decision effectively disqualified Chua.

Similarly, Lim told Malaysiakini that there was no rift between him and Chua, as heavily rumoured recently.

"I just spoke to Chua today about this issue," he said, adding that laws such as the one currently being disputed merely victimised innocent lawmakers and should be abolished.

No malice, says Tian

At a press conference later, Chua said he saw no malice in the veteran DAP leader's opinion.

"I understand what Karpal is doing. Basically Karpal is insisting that as long as such an unjust law exists, there will continue to be victims of such a law."

Expressing his own opposition to the law, he said parliamentarians must be free to exercise their right to democratic expression without such restrictions.

"We must defend the dignity of parliamentarians [...] the law shouldn't be there. It should not include people who engage in peaceful assembly and speak out on behalf of the rakyat.

"Parliamentarians must enjoy immunity when executing their duty as the voice of the people," he said.