• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • RSS
  • Archives
  • Subscribe
The Nut Graph

The Nut Graph

Making Sense of Politics & Pop Culture

  • Projects
    • MP Watch
    • Found in Conversation
  • Current Issues
    • 6 Words
    • Commentary
    • Features
    • Found in Quotation
    • News
  • Columns
  • Interviews
    • Exclusives
    • Found in Malaysia
  • Multimedia
    • Audio
    • Pictures
    • Videos
  • Corrections
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Vault
    • Found in Translation

Court dismisses Puchong MP’s suspension application

October 22, 2009

KUALA LUMPUR, 22 Oct 2009: The High Court (Appellate and Special Powers Division) here today dismissed Puchong Member of Parliament (MP) Gobind Singh Deo‘s application to lift his one-year suspension order imposed by the Dewan Rakyat earlier this year.

However, judge Mohd Ariff Md Yusof ruled that Gobind was entitled to his remuneration, including all his allowances and benefits as an MP.

The judge ordered Gobind to be paid interest of 8% on his allowances over the Dewan Rakyat’s decision to withhold his remuneration.

Mohd Ariff, in his decision, said under Article 64 of the Federal Constitution, an MP should be allowed his remuneration, and the house could not deprive the perks to which an elected representative was entitled.

On the issue of the plaintiff’s application to declare void his suspension from the Dewan Rakyat sittings effective 16 March, Mohd Ariff ruled that the High Court had no jurisdiction to challenge the motion passed by the Dewan Rakyat.


Gobind
On 23 April, Gobind filed an originating summons at the High Court here, seeking a declaration that his one-year suspension as an MP effective 16 March was null and void as it violated Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution.

He named the Dewan Rakyat speaker, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, Dewan Rakyat Secretary Datuk Roosme Hamzah, and the government as defendants.

Gobind, 36, is also seeking to declare that the letter, dated 18 March and signed by Roosme, suspending him as MP and stripping him of all allowances and benefits as an MP was null and void because it was unenforceable under the law.

He wanted a declaration that he was entitled to all those allowances and benefits under Article 64, and that the proceedings and decision of the Dewan Rakyat were not immune to adjudication by the court.

Mohd Ariff in his judgment said he concurred with the plaintiff’s counsel, Karpal Singh, that Gobind was merely suspended from the house, and not from his duties to serve his constituency.

However, he agreed with Senior Federal Counsel Azizah Nawawi that Gobind’s suspension by the Dewan Rakyat for contempt was not subject to judicial review.

Mohd Ariff also pointed out that he was bound by the Federal Court’s decision in Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir’s case.

But he said, in Zambry’s case, the contempt proceedings were initiated over the decision made by the state speaker V Sivakumar, which occurred outside the Perak state assembly building, compared with the contempt proceedings against Gobind, which were triggered by a statement uttered within the “four walls” of the Parliament house.

Gobind later told reporters that he respected the court’s decision. He added that what was more important was that even though he was still under suspension, he was able to serve his constituents.

“I challenged the Dewan Rakyat’s decision as some of the MPs are full-time politicians … if they are suspended and their remuneration withdrawn, then it would be difficult for them to serve their constituents,” he said.

Asked about the money, Gobind jokingly said he would pay his counsel first. Karpal, however, replied that he had taken the case “pro bono”.

Commenting on today’s decision, Karpal said it was a landmark decision, and it was a fair judgment as it did not mean whatever that happened in the house could not be reviewed or challenged by the court.

He said Gobind would not appeal against the decision, and added that it was not right for Parliament to withhold remuneration. — Bernama

Filed Under: News

Primary Sidebar

Search

Recent Comments

  • Wave33 on The Nut Graph stops publication
  • Adam on The Nut Graph stops publication
  • PSTan on The Nut Graph stops publication
  • PSTan on The Nut Graph stops publication
  • Andre Lai on The Nut Graph stops publication

Recent News

  • The Nut Graph stops publication
  • Nasihat tentang sepupu yang mengganggu perasaan
  • Uncommon Sense with Wong Chin Huat: The Sunni-Shia split and the answer to Muslim unity
  • Why Malaysia needs the national unity bills
  • Challenging government in the digital age: Lessons from Kidex
  • Najib’s failure
  • Babi, anjing, pondan: Jijik orang Islam Malaysia
  • Kidex and the law – What the government’s not telling you
  • Beyond Dyana Sofya
  • Uncommon Sense with Wong Chin Huat: Does Malaysia need hate speech laws?

Tags

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi Anwar Ibrahim Barisan Nasional BN Bukit Selambau by-election dap Deborah Loh Ding Jo-Ann Election Commission elections Found in Malaysia Found in Quotation Gan Pei Ling government high court Hishammuddin Hussein ISA islam Jacqueline Ann Surin Khairy Jamaluddin KW Mak Lim Guan Eng Malaysia MCA Menteri Besar MP Watch Muhyiddin Yassin muslim Najib Razak Pakatan Rakyat Parliament Parti Keadilan Rakyat pas Penang Perak PKR police politics prime minister Selangor Shanon Shah Umno Wong Chin Huat Zedeck Siew

Footer

  • About The Nut Graph
  • Who Are We?
  • Our Contributors
  • Past Contributors
  • Guest Contributors
  • Editorial Policy
  • Comments & Columns
  • Copyright Policy
  • Web Accessibility Policy
  • Privacy Policy
The Nut Graph

© 2025 The Nut Graph