Datuk Seri Takiyuddin Hassan (PN–Kota Bharu) has claimed that the government’s move to table a motion to suspend him from the Dewan Rakyat for six months is legally flawed.
Takiyuddin, who is also the Opposition Chief Whip, said the motion—expected to be brought by Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail—constitutes ‘double jeopardy‘, as it overlaps with an earlier motion filed by Suhaizan Kaiat (PH–Pulai) to refer him to the Parliamentary Committee of Rights and Privileges.
He said the committee process has not even begun, and he has yet to be summoned for any proceedings.
“Instead, the Speaker (Tan Sri Johari Abdul) sent a new letter to the Pulai MP and the Home Minister instructing them to respond to my explanation. I received a copy of the letter,” he told reporters at Parliament today.
According to Takiyuddin, this corresponds to Standing Order 36(12), where an MP is referred to the Rights and Privileges Committee. However, before the committee process has concluded, a fresh motion under Standing Order 27(3) suddenly appeared—calling for his six-month suspension.
He further questioned why his right to be heard before the committee—whose members include both government and opposition MPs—was denied.
“Why am I not brought before the committee? The government has the majority—they want to suspend me. There has been no decision on the Pulai MP’s motion. This is ‘double jeopardy’: two actions over the same issue. That is illegal,” he said.
Saifuddin is expected to propose the suspension over Takiyuddin’s claim linking the Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) to the 1985 Memali incident.
Today’s Order Paper states that the Dewan Rakyat must decide whether the Kota Bharu MP should be suspended for remarks he made during the Budget 2026 debate on Oct 22.
Takiyuddin said he has complied with all requirements set by the Speaker, including submitting a detailed six-page explanation with attachments within the stipulated deadline.
He added that it is now up to the Speaker to determine whether the motion against him has merit before deciding whether to refer him to the Rights and Privileges Committee.
