Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe by Email This is quite serious accusation. State Assembly speaker Sivakumar said he was not informed about the call for assembly sitting. But NST published the story below:
Sources close to the menteri besar’s office told the New Straits Times yesterday that state assembly secretary Abdullah Antong had even a 30-minute meeting at the speaker’s office on Friday, before the notices were sent out to all 59 state assemblymen.
A source said: “It was a blatant lie when he claimed to have only known about it from several state assemblymen and newspapers. He was properly informed of the sitting and the meeting (on Friday) was granted by none other than Sivakumar himself.”
“During the meeting, Abdullah fully briefed him on the proposed sitting and explained that the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, had given his consent for the sitting.”
The source also revealed that documented evidence of the ruler’s consent and assurance that all processes and procedures had been adhered to were also explained at length to Sivakumar.
“It was even pointed out to him that the sitting must be carried out in a dignified and honourable way, befitting the institution,” he said, adding that the meeting was carried out in a cordial manner.
“All the necessary procedures were followed, the ruler’s consent was obtained, notices were sent out and the speaker was duly notified of the proposed sitting.
“Why is he denying all this by issuing a statement to that effect?” asked the source.
Sivakumar, at a press conference at his office at the state secretariat building here on Saturday, said he had suspended Abdullah for issuing the notices without his knowledge or consent.
If its proven that Sivakumar lied, it will seriously erode his credibility and make it easier to replace him. So, who is correct? The speaker or the assembly secretary?
