On 2 November 2016, I received a written reply from Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat regarding my motion to refer Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister, Najib Razak to parliamentary Committee of Privileges per Standing Order 36(12) because he has misled the Parliament with his 2017 Budget Speech.
In the letter the Speaker said the following:
“Setelah mengkaji dan mempertimbangkan usul Yang Berhormat berhubung dengan isu-isu yang dibangkitkan serta maklum balas yang dikemukakan, saya berpuas hati bahawa tiada kes prima facie wujud terhadap Yang Amat Berhormat Menteri Kewangan, Ahli Parlimen Kawasan Pekan. Ini adalah kerana Ucapan Bajet 2017 merupakan ucapan dasar yang melibatkan perancangan dan pelaksanaan projek/program Kerajaan bagi tahun kewangan yang akan datang. Sumber pembiayaan bagi pelaksanaan perancangan Kerajaan boleh ditanggung melalui Kumpulan Wang Disatukan, entiti seperti Badan Berkanun Persekutuan dan syarikat milik Kerajaan. Sekiranya pembiayaan adalah tidak daripada Kumpulan Wang Disatukan maka amaunnya tidak perlu dinyatakan dalam Anggaran Perbelanjaan Persekutuan yang dibentangkan.”
I humbly disagree with the decision of the Speaker above.
In my letter to the Speaker dated 26 OCTOBER 2016, I explained the reason for my motion to refer the Member of Pekan to the Committee of Privileges as follows:
“Ahli Pekan…telah mengumumkan perkara dalam Ucapan tersebut yang sama ada tidak terkandung ataupun berbeza dengan apa yang termaktub dalam… Anggaran Perbelanjaan Persekutuan 2017.”
In other words, there are two types of discrepancies, 1) where items announced in the Budget Speech are not found in the Federal Expenditure Estimates, and 2) where items announced in Budget Speech are found in the said Estimates BUT their amounts are totally different. In my said letter, I have included examples of both types of discrepancies.
I have issued a statement earlier on “Why did I refer Najib Razak to the parliamentary Privileges Committee” where among others, I said that such discrepancies will greatly obstruct the business of Parliament.
As such, even if I agree with the Speaker’s decision above – and I would like to put on record that I disagree – his decision will not be able to explain the second type of discrepancy. Below are some of the examples of the second type of discrepancy:
| # | Budget Speech | Federal Expenditure Estimates |
| i | Baris-207: “Dalam pada itu, Suruhanjaya Komunikasi dan Multimedia Malaysia (SKMM) akan menyediakan RM1 billion supaya liputan dan kualiti jalur lebar di seluruh negara mencapai 20 megabit sesaat.” | M/s 567: “Projek Jalur Lebar” is allocated RM57.5 million. |
| ii | Baris-116: “Untuk membantu golongan pesawah padi pula, kerajaan memperuntukkan RM1.3 billion untuk subsidi harga padi, benih padi dan baja padi, termasuk padi bukit.” | M/s 255: Total allocated under the items, “Subsidi Harga Padi”, “Subsidi Baja Padi”, “Subsidi Benih Padi Sah”, “Subsidi Baja Padi Bukit/Huma” is RM690 million. |
| iii | Baris-129: “RM360 juta bagi Perbadanan Tabung Pembangunan Kemahiran.” | M/s 542: “Perbadanan Tabung Pembangunan Kemahiran” is allocated RM5.5 million |
In just these three examples, the total difference of amount between what was announced in the Finance Minister’s Budget Speech and the Estimates is about RM1.907 billion. This is not a small amount, in fact, this amount already exceeded the annual budget of several state governments in Malaysia.
Thus, it is clear that there is a prima facie case against Najib and it is for him to answer before the Committee of Privileges.