Wee told the Dewan Rakyat it was clear from the Hansard and video recordings of the Dewan Rakyat proceedings that he did not interject when the minister was speaking about the matter on Nov 6.
“I only interjected the next day when I raised the standing orders to seek clarification. I had no intention of dragging the minister to the committee. At that time, I was merely recounting the exchange between myself and the minister,” said the MCA president.
Yesterday, Chong Zhemin (PH-Kampar) revealed that a motion he filed to refer Wee to the committee over the Padu development costs had been rejected by Dewan Rakyat Speaker Johari Abdul. Chong said he accepted the decision.
Chong previously contended that Wee had misled the House and imputed improper motives to Rafizi by stating that the cost of developing Padu was RM85 million.
Chong said the Barisan Nasional MP had accused the minister of giving two different answers on Padu’s cost and of misleading the Dewan Rakyat.
Rafizi previously denied the government had spent RM85 million to establish Padu, saying it had only spent RM31 million on the system as of September this year.
Wee, however, contended that the RM85 million figure he had repeatedly mentioned was from past written parliamentary replies from Rafizi. He was referring to Rafizi’s statement in July that the total cost to develop Padu from 2023 to 2025 would reach RM85.27 million.
Chong yesterday referred to a letter from Johari, which stated that Wee denied interjecting during Rafizi’s speech or questioning the disparity in the figures. Wee also denied referring Rafizi to the rights and privileges committee regarding the matter.
Chong said despite Wee’s denial, his action of raising Standing Order 36(12) “suggested otherwise”.
Wee today said that raising Standing Order 36(12) does not necessarily mandate a referral to the committee.
“What’s required (from the MP against whom the complaint is being registered) is an explanation. If the remarks made by the MP are inaccurate, they should be retracted. That’s what usually happens and there have been many such cases.”
Johari told the House that both Wee and Rafizi referred to different figures in different contexts and that both were correct.
“Therefore, I believe this issue does not warrant further discussion, as per my decision in the letter issued to the Kampar MP. Case closed.”