On the seventh day of the first session of the 13th National Parliament, Opposition Leader Dr Shafiqur Rahman sharply criticised the home minister while raising a point of order under Rule 71.
Speaking during Thursday’s sitting, he alleged that the home minister has the ability to present truth as falsehood and falsehood as truth.
In response, Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed objected to the opposition leader’s use of the word “false,” describing it as unparliamentary and requesting that it be expunged from the parliamentary proceedings.
The exchange took place during a session presided over by Speaker Hafiz Uddin Ahmed Bir Bikram.
Opposition leader’s remarks
Addressing the Speaker, Dr Shafiqur Rahman said the home minister had commented on his statement after the previous day’s sitting.
“The biggest problem is that after we left yesterday, the home minister, out of affection, said that I had made an untrue statement here,” he said.
“In fact, Allah has blessed him with a remarkable skill. By simply changing the bottle while keeping the contents same, he can present truth as falsehood and falsehood as truth quite beautifully. I stood up today just to thank him for that,” he added.
Speaker’s intervention and minister’s response
The speaker intervened, noting that the issue related to the previous day’s proceedings and did not need to be raised again.
However,
“If he had said ‘incorrect’ or ‘untrue,’ I would not have objected. I request that the word be expunged,” he said.
Explaining the context of the previous day’s discussion, Salahuddin Ahmed said he had earlier stated that the opposition leader had presented inaccurate information.
“According to Rule 62, a private member’s adjournment motion was accepted long after the opposition leaders had walked out. Therefore, it was impossible for the motion to have been read or raised earlier. That is why I said his statement yesterday was untrue,” he said.
Opposition leader’s clarification
Responding to the minister’s remarks, Dr Shafiqur Rahman said the confusion arose because a similar proposal had earlier been brought by an independent member.
“The same proposal was raised yesterday under a different name. The subject matter was the same; only the name had changed. I was aware of the earlier proposal, that’s why I made my remarks. I did not provide any incorrect information,” he said.
