By Shikin Louis
KUCHING, May 14: Proceedings at the Sarawak Legislative Assembly (DUS) were briefly disrupted today after a heated exchange over remarks involving an individual allegedly linked to gangsterism-related activities, leading to multiple points of order and a ruling from the Deputy Speaker.
The issue arose during the Sarawak Governor’s address debate when Padungan assemblyman Chong Chieng Jen raised concerns over an individual, whom he alleged had been linked to criminal activities including extortion, racketeering and other offences, while also appearing at various public and political-related events involving Sarawak United Peoples’ Party (SUPP) leaders.
Chong argued that the repeated appearances of individuals allegedly linked to racketeering activities alongside SUPP leaders could create negative public perception and damage confidence in the ruling coalition.
“These racketeering syndicate individuals appearing so often together with SUPP leaders sends a very bad message to society and reflects badly on Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) also,” he said.
The remarks immediately drew strong objections from several government backbenchers, with Kota Sentosa assemblyman Wilfred Yap Yau Sin raising points of order under Standing Orders 32(5) and 32(6), arguing that no member shall refer to any other member by name and that no allegations should be made that impute improper motives or cannot be substantiated.
Tupong assemblyman Datuk Fazzrudin Abdul Rahman then rose to seek clarification, questioning whether there was any evidence that the individual had openly admitted to being linked to criminal activity or gangs, and arguing that it was unfair to associate a political party with the actions of one person.
“Firstly, do you have any information whether this person is admitting to SUPP, ‘Look, I am a notorious gangster.’”
“Number two, don’t you think it is unfair for us to implicate the action to a party? For instance, we have other Democratic Action Party (DAP) members in West Malaysia who got charged and convicted — don’t you think it is unfair for us to implicate the party for one individual?” Fazzrudin questioned.
Batu Kitang assemblyman Datuk Lo Khere Chiang, who was drawn into the exchange after being accused of being connected to the individual, defended himself and his party, stressing that ongoing investigations should not be politicised or used to imply guilt.
He said arrests do not amount to convictions and warned against linking individuals under investigation to political parties.
“Arrest is not a conviction. Investigations are for the authorities and the courts to determine, not for politicians to exploit in order to create political narratives against SUPP or GPS,” he said.
He added that it was unfair to selectively associate political parties with individuals facing allegations while ignoring due process.
He also stressed that enforcement agencies must be allowed to carry out investigations independently and that the august House should not become a platform for “trial by association.”
The Deputy Speaker Datuk Idris Buang subsequently intervened, stressing that the matter involved an individual currently under police investigation and that no conviction had been made by the courts.
“I think I will rule, somehow the point of order raised by Batu Kitang is quite fair. You cannot impute motives or associate allegations against an individual with a political party when investigations are still underway.
“There is no formality in terms of guilt or whatever it is, and it is not fair to associate SUPP leaders with such characters merely because of appearances together at events. Sometimes people may not know who they are dealing with,” he said.
He then ordered that portions of Chong’s remarks linking the individual to any political party or implying wrongdoing by association be expunged from the Hansard under Standing Order 89, stating that such references were not appropriate in the absence of judicial determination.
“I would like the statements by Padungan mentioning SUPP and SUPP leaders to be expunged under my powers under Standing Order 89 read together with Commonwealth practice and Rule 380 and Rule 353.”
“Individuals have to be judged by their own actions. You cannot associate the actions of one person with another party,” he emphasised.
Following the ruling, proceedings resumed with the debate continuing as scheduled. – DayakDaily
