Share |

Tuesday 3 December 2013

Sivarasa: Tengku Adnan misled the House

The Subang MP says Justice VT Singham's court order on July 5, 2012 did not approve the demolition of the Sri Muneswarar Kaliyaman temple

KUALA LUMPUR: Federal Territories Minister Tengku Adnan Mansor was today accused of misleading the House when he said a court order was given to approve the demolition of the Sri Muneswarar Kaliyaman temple.

Subang MP R Sivarasa told reporters in Parliament today that presiding judge of the case, Justice VT Singham, had clearly said in his judgment that the court order cannot be used to demolish the temple.

“The order of the court dated July 5, 2012 does not include any order of demolition of the wall of the temple building and it is also not an eviction order,” stated the judgment.

Sivarasa added that as such, Tengku Adnan’s statement amounts to contempt of the House and he can be referred to the rights and privileges committee.

“The question is whether he did it knowingly or not. If he says he did not say it knowingly, he must then explain why and how he was given the wrong information,” said Sivarasa.

Sivarasa said Tengku Adnan must also explain the action he will take against the civil servant who misinformed him.

“Since he is the minister in charge, he should be more careful in his statements,” said Sivarasa.

City Hall had demolished a part of the temple located in the city centre on Nov 10.

Get your facts right

Commenting on his eviction from Parliament last week, Sivarasa said that as the Speaker, Pandikar Amin Mulia should not have taken sides and instead be neutral and unbiased.

“The Speaker and Tengku Adnan must get their facts right,” he said.

Sivarasa was thrown out of Parliament last Wednesday for bringing up the issue on the temple’s demolition.

Sivarasa had refused to budge when Pandikar asked him to move to another topic and was then suspended for two days.

On Tengku Adnan’s statement which stated that the temple was only a shrine, he said: “It’s not a matter of interpretation, rather, it’s a false statement.”

No comments: